December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

January 3, 1995 TO: INTERNET REMAILER OPERATORS FROM: THOMAS M. SMALL COUNSEL FOR RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER AND BRIDGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. I represent Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), which owns the unpublished, confidential Advanced Technology of the religion of Scientology, and holds exclusive rights under the copyrights applicable to the Advanced Technology materials. I also represent Bridge Publications, Inc., which holds the exclusive right to print, publish and sell various non-confidential works by the founder of the Scientology religion, L. Ron Hubbard, and to make and publish compilations and derivative works of and from those works and to enforce all rights in them. It has come to my attention that there are two alternate newsgroups on the Internet to which individuals have been annonymously posting certain of my clients' published and unpublished copyrighted materials, including certain of the confidential Advanced Technology materials. These confidential materials being posted were stolen from my client. There is reason to believe that the materials which are uploaded by these users may also be downloaded by other users, and that these activities may be occurring through the systems which are linked into the Internet. The two newsgroups into which these materials are being copied are alt.technology.clearing and alt.religion. Scientology. We request your assistance in dealing with the problem. The spread of infringements and misappropriations by the users will be lessened if you lock out from your systems the two newsgroups involved, alt.religion.scientology and alt.technology.clearing, limiting the potential for reposting and downloading. It will then be easier to deal with the intentional infringers through appropriate channels. Both the uploading and downloading of these materials constitute unauthorized copying and distribution of the materials in violation of our clients' rights under United States copyright laws and the law of other countries, where applicable. Damages and an injunction against further unauthorized copying and distribution may be obtained against infringers and, all unauthorized copies and all materials and equipment by which the unauthorized copies may be reproduced can be impounded. Unauthorized disclosure of the confidential Advanced Technology materials also violates applicable trade secrets laws. Action is being taken directly with the systems users who we know are primarily responsible for these violations of my clients' rights. We hope those actions will put an end to the infringements by these users. We do {not} wish to involve others in litigation. Unfortunately, however, such actions will be unavoidable where there is contributory infringement by those who knowingly induce or contribute to the infringing conduct of these users by providing facilities or systems that enable the direct infringers to infringe, because we legally must take all actions to protect our clients' property rights. Courts are holding such contributory infringers liable. Two examples are: Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Maphia BBS, 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1921 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and Playboy Enterprises v. Frena, 839 F. Supp. 1152 (M.D. Fla. 1993). Recent proposed legislation regarding potential liability of systems operators and others who provide facilities or services, such as annonymous remailers, for information passing through their systems has understandably created concern on the part of systems operators as a potential liability. We ask your voluntary assistance in dealing with these known wilful infringers so that we can both deal with the problem without legal hassles, and legal liability can be confined to those who intend to create the situation. We ask that you confirm that you have blocked access to these newsgroups through your remailer. If you are unwilling to do so, we ask that you inform us as to the reasons for your position. Sincerely, Thomas M. Small

6 5

Re: Anonymous payment scheme
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> HH> So, you may be able to have a form of anonymity from the person you ar > HH> transacting with, but I don't think you can be anonymous from the bank > HH> and from the government. And personally, I am more concerned about th > With a debit card you can't be anonymous, because your money resides in > the bank. With digital cash, and the ability to transfer money to > another digital cash card via phone lines, I don't see how they can > successfully trace everything. They will try, no doubt. I thought the origination of this thread was a hypothetical proposal to start a Cypherpunks Bank which would join Visa and issue debit cards; they could be started for cash, under pseudonyms, and would expire when they ran dry. So you and your 10,000 closest friends could call yourselves anything you want, and the merchant would know that Johnny Cash Foobar buys a lot of pharmaceutical manufacturing equipment, but doesn't know who he is. The bank's not paying interest, so they probably don't need SSNs until the next round of privacy-prevention laws, and they're not using them as credit-validation tools since they're only issuing debit cards to cash customers anyway. Meanwhile, it gets to hire lots of lawyers, pay Visa commissions, and collect interest on the float. And if you get tired of being Johnny Cash Foobar, or don't like having your purchases correlated, John Hancock's card can buy the motorboats and Joe Toshiba's can pay for the precision machine tools... The standard merchant contract with Visa/Mastercharge used to forbid merchants from asking for additional ID unless they suspected fraud; I think some states have made laws about this as well. Bill

2 1

Re: Exporting cryptographic materials, theory vs. practice
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

James Donald writes: > On Mon, 2 Jan 1995, Carol Anne Braddock wrote: > > Right now, I don't think U.S. Customs is going to ask you if you > > have PGP in your PC if you leave the country, or return either. > > > > They should, and I'd be proud to say yes. > > Well Carol, I am sure your heart is in the right place, but I > do not agree. > > They should not, and I'd be deranged to say yes. Of course you'd be deranged to say yes, but just imagine what would happen if every Customs Thug were required to ask everyone carrying a PC into our out of the country if they had any software on it capable of protecting the privacy of their files or communications, and requiring major paperwork of anyone who said yes.... the law would be gone in a week. My latest beef with the customs thugs was when I last came back from Mexico, I noticed that their arm badges said something about like "U.S. Customs Service - Protectors of Independence" Arrrgh! Bill

1 0

Art and Crypto - Re: I'm back. :)
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lile Elam writes > I finally got back on cypherpunks. Have been incredibly busy > but wanted to keep intouch as several artist friends of mine > want to start using art as a encryption vehicle... Should be fun... It works on so many levels, as well - hiding encrypted bits in the low-order bits of pixel color values - representing data in the colored spots on a Seurat impressionist work or the lines and splotches on a Jackson Pollack imitation - wondering what the artist _really meant_ by a given figure :-) It also may be a good way to nag us into doing stealthy versions of PGP and other cryptosystem headers - steganography is less useful when the encrypted message always starts off with - ----- BEGIN PGP ENCRYPTED FILE and has the recipient's keyid readily findable as well. Bill

1 0

Re: Siegel and Lewis
by dmandl＠bear.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: <raph(a)netcom.com> > > I just got off the phone with Peter Lewis, reporter for the New > York Times. He is unaware of any grand consipracy to regulate the Net, > but then again if there was one, I don't think they'd tell him. > > His piece that ran Saturday was badly mangled by the editorial > process, especially since it ran on page one. Those articles get to be > mangled by a whole new set of people who otherwise wouldn't get to > touch it. I think Lewis has basically good intentions, and does do his > homework before writing a story. I have a good friend who writes for the Times. Last time I spoke to him, he was frantically trying to get in touch with the Business editor because a piece he'd just written had been hacked to bits, with several inaccuracies introduced. He probably couldn't reach the guy, and I bet the mutilated version got printed (I don't know for sure, since I don't read the Times). This is standard. It's almost a rule that whenever there's a story on a subject you're familiar with there'll be major inaccuracies. So what does that say about all the others? > Yecchh. Now I know why I don't rely on daily newspapers for my news Well, that's one reason, anyway... --Dave.

1 0

Re: Regulatory Risks
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan asks > So if the feds intend to regulate cyberspace, what specific sorts of > regulations are possible at this point? > Forget laws, what is *technically* and institutionally feasible? > Can they just throw out TCP/IP and mandate X25? Can TCP/IP be "tamed?" > How can they control private virtual networks that piggyback on the basic > network structure? "Our chief weapon was surprise", and of course Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. The most effective thing they could do would be to deploy a digital signature system that you _have_ to use to pay your company taxes or file your individual tax returns on-line, and go from there to requiring it for other business transactions with the government. Subsidized servers, of course. It's worked with Social Security Numbers, and if they control on-line signatures for business, then they can control access to the nets for a large fraction of the population. Along with it, require that banks use the signatures for electronic banking, which is a bit easier since banks are heavily regulated and the Federal Reserve would probably be happy to help. Besides, it gives the Post Office something to do in a post-paper world. They obviously can't prevent piggyback networks, but they _can_ make it economically infeasible for medium-large companies to run them. For instance, declaring internet providers to be common carriers, and doing a "digital telephony bill" to require them to use IPng authentication on packets and traceable headers on news and email systems, with the risk of de-licensing and confiscation for non-conformists. It's nice that the largest backbone provider is now NOT the NSFnet, but a commercial provider (though I'd obviously prefer AT&T to Sprint+MCI :-), but they're still the Phone Company, and could be forced to accept regulation. Meanwhile, at the user end, the Enemy could start using confiscation on any computers caught running remailers or encryption - even if they can't stop us Nasty Evil Black-Marketeering K0deZ Dealers, they could make it too risky to do at work or school, which means your own money is on the line if you get caught calculating in the Black Numbers. I doubt they'll be able to ban convicted lawbreakers from using computers entirely for much longer (heck, I wouldn't be able to use my microwave oven any more, much less drive my car), but they could still try. Bill

1 0

Regulatory Risks
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So if the feds intend to regulate cyberspace, what specific sorts of regulations are possible at this point? Forget laws, what is *technically* and institutionally feasible? Can they just throw out TCP/IP and mandate X25? Can TCP/IP be "tamed?" How can they control private virtual networks that piggyback on the basic network structure? Just questions. No answers. DCF ************************************************************************* ATMs, Contracting Out, Digital Switching, Downsizing, EDI, Fax, Fedex, Home Workers, Internet, Just In Time, Leasing, Mail Receiving, Phone Cards, Quants, Securitization, Temping, Voice Mail.

4 3

Re: Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:00 PM 1/4/95, Name withheld on request wrote: <A laughable pseudo-legal screed from a church started on a bet in a bar.> This may be interesting. Practically the entire revenue stream for the "Church" of "Scientology" comes from "sales" of this "literature". If someone publishes it on the internet anonymously, the revenue accounts of the Co$ may become "Clear". Ahem. Meanwhile, theology and philosophy departments everywhere are fighting for funding to put most of the legitimate canon in their fields on the net for free... > Thomas M. Small ^^^^^ Cheers, Bob R. Nott ^^^^ ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

1 0

British Hacker Article
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From The Independent (London) Tuesday 3 January 1995 - Front Page [Banner Headlines] BRITISH BOY `RAIDED US DEFENCE SECRETS' by Tim Kelsey A 16-year-old Briton allegedly hacked into some of the US government's most sensitive computers and was able to watch secret communications between US agents in north Korea during the crisis over nuclear inspection last spring. After reading them, he put them onto a bulletin board of the Internet, an international computer network accessible by 35 million users. _The_Independent_ has learnt that Scotland Yard has arrested the boy and has sent a report to the Crown Prosecution Service. Officers expect to be told whether he can be charged this month. In what US officials have conceded is one of the most serious breaches of computer security in recent years, the boy accessed several defence department systems for at least seven months without detection. The systems he obtained access to included those for ballistic weapons research, and aircraft design, payroll, procurement, personnel records and electronic mail. The boy, who was arrested in Tottenham, north London in July, was, according to US officials, one of a number of people who broke into US defence computers in the latter months of 1993 and the early months of 1994. But it is understood that he was responsible for most of the damage. In all, more than a million user passwords were compromised. The US Defence Information Systems Agency admitted in a private briefing, which has been confirmed, that the hackers had affected the Department's "military readiness." The boy was first detected in March 1994, and the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) was appointed to investigate. The OSI is a special task force, based at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington DC. It mounts special "raids" on classified computer sites to test their security. A spokesman said yesterday that the boy, who was nicknamed "Datastream" by friends on the Internet, needed "more knowledge than the average home computer owner would possess" to hack the computers. It is understood that he invented a "sniffer" programme which searched across hundreds of computers attached to the Internet for passwords and user names. He was finally caught because he left his terminal on-line to a US defence computer over night. Another British hacker, aged 22, who is acquainted with "Datastream", read some of the messages accessed by him. "They contained information about firing sites in North Korea and stuff like that. Field intelligence. He kept detailed logs of communication traffic. He really couldn't believe his luck. The Americans thought he was a spy but he told them he was just doing it for fun. The OSI said in a statement: "It is unknown if any hacker actually read, copied or took any other action with the Korean files or any other sensitive data. The Korean files were on the Girths Air Force Base computer system and therefore the could have been accessed. It is our opinion that the hacker who accessed the Korean file system learned of its existence form a bulletin board system or another hacker. It is possible the hacker could have read the Korean files." Scotland Yard's Computer Crime Unit is able to prosecute the boy under the terms of the Computer Misuse Act, which allows for crimes committed overseas by Britons to be dealt with in UK courts. A spokesman confirmed that a report had been sent to the CPS. The Internet, designed in the 1960s by US Defence engineers to enable them to communicate quickly by computer, is now available to anyone who pays a small fee. --- Keyboarding by Lois Roth ************************************************************************* ATMs, Contracting Out, Digital Switching, Downsizing, EDI, Fax, Fedex, Home Workers, Internet, Just In Time, Leasing, Mail Receiving, Phone Cards, Quants, Securitization, Temping, Voice Mail.

1 0

Re: Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> These confidential materials being posted were stolen from > my client. There is reason to believe that the materials > which are uploaded by these users may also be downloaded by > other users, What makes him think that anyone (except thetans which spend all their money to scientology anyway) wants to have this "material" and wastes any diskspace or bandwith for ? Hadmut

1 0

Anonymity and talk.politics.chinal
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Many of the messages in talk.politics.china are anonymous. They use anon.penet.fi Many of these messages are in Chinese, not ASCII. This is an obvious example of legitimate use of anonymity. In addition this example makes an association in peoples minds between suppressing anonymity, and discouraging dissent. --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we James A. Donald are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state. jamesd(a)netcom.com

1 0

Re: San Francisco Editorial
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:44 PM 01/03/95, Hal wrote: >The scary thing about cancels is that some proposals have actually been >directed at anonymous posts themselves. Someone anonymously posted >what purported to be a grisly transcript of the last seconds of the >doomed Challenger crew as they fell to the ocean. This caused a great >hue and cry and some calls for banning anonymous posts and/or >retroactively cancelling them. This led to some very amusing events >which Detweiler has chronicled in his FAQ on anonymity, the net result >of which was that the idea was discredited. But the emergence of >CancelMoose is not an altogether positive event in my view. I too have mixed feelings about CancelMoose. But it must be noted, that while it's possible for CancelMoose to be used for Evil Purposes, it hasn't. This isn't a trivial point. The net collectively (well, it wasn't really collective, but I suggest if this individual anonymous CancelMoose hadn't existed, someone else would have done it) responded to something that it's nearly universally agreed upon is bad; C&S-style spamming. That is an example of an anarchist non-hierchical system _working_, despite the lack of rules. And the widespread cancelling of anonymous posts, or posts from communists or whatever, _hasn't_ happened. And if someone tried it, I bet it wouldn't work for long, something would be done to stop it. An anti-cancelbot that reposts anything cancelled by the Evil Censoring Cancelbots, or something. (Why haven't C&S thought of this themselves? Would really create havok with all the cancels and anti-cancels and re-cancels, etc.) I dont' think Martha Siegel really understands what's going on (not a surprise). She is speaking out against a lawless anarchist net, and saying we need more rules. Because she's mad at people cancelling her posts, mainly. But it seems completely obvious that if we _did_ have rules, they would prohibit the kind of really horrible spams she and her husband have been undertaken. Because 99.99% of the net agrees that those spams are really bad. But, like I said, such rules aren't even neccesary. The net collectively reacts. And there will be a counter reaction, C&S will figure out how to get around the cancelbots, or the cancelbots will be used for Evil, or whatever. But I believe firmly that that would cause yet another counter reaction of some kind. And so on and so on. The net will stay at equilibrium.

1 0

who?
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

does anybody know what the email address is for the good samaritans? tia ps, how come mail i send to jpiunix.com is getting bounced, are they down?

6 9

Re: warning letter from...
by erc＠s116.slcslip.indirect.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Speaking of Scientology... Forwarded message: > Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny > Subject: Do we face Mount St. Helens twice a day? > From: wb8foz(a)netcom.com (David Lesher) > Keywords: topical, funny, parody, computers > Approved: funny(a)clarinet.com > Message-ID: <S7ae.2a78(a)clarinet.com> > Date: Wed, 4 Jan 95 12:20:02 EST > > AP: BILL TAKES ON ORAL & JIM > > Bill Gates, Incorporated announced that the Corporation has > purchased a controlling interest in the Church of Scientology, > effective today. The amount of the transaction was not > disclosed. > > A corporate spokesman reading from a prepared text called > "premature" reports that the next version of the company's > mainstay product, referred to as "Windows_2001" in the trade > press, will incorporate an E-meter pop-up box. > > The spokesman did vehemently deny that BGI had really intended > to purchase the Roman Catholic Church, but had drafted the > contract with Microsoft Word on a Pentium, thus causing the > error. > > "We got what we wanted. We see a great potential in the > Church's auditing techniques, and plan to use them to > investigate methods of producing more uniform structured > thoughts, err, code." > > BGI is privately held. > RCC stock closed down 1/8, in light trading. -- Ed Carp, N7EKG Ed.Carp(a)linux.org, ecarp(a)netcom.com 801/534-8857 voicemail 801/460-1883 digital pager Finger ecarp(a)netcom.com for PGP 2.5 public key an88744(a)anon.penet.fi ** PGP encrypted email preferred! ** "What's the use of distant travel if only to discover - you're homeless in your heart." --Basia, "Yearning"

1 0

Re: Siegel and Lewis
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:22 PM 01/03/95, Raph Levien wrote: > His piece that ran Saturday was badly mangled by the editorial >process, especially since it ran on page one. Those articles get to be >mangled by a whole new set of people who otherwise wouldn't get to >touch it. I think Lewis has basically good intentions, and does do his >homework before writing a story. Yeah, I encourage everyone to actually _finish_ reading that article before putting Lewis on your permanent hate list. I almost put it down in disgust, from the stuff on page 1, but if you turn to where the article is continued, it becomes quite a bit more balanced and less fear-mongering. In a rather disjointed sort of way, that makes it easy to beleive the article was mangled somewhat in editing. Perhaps they rearanged it to put the "sensational" fear-mongering stuff first. Which is unfortunate, and perhaps intentional, because most people probably won't make it to the end of the article, and if they do, will have been pre-biased by the initial paragraphs, especially if this is the first they've heard of the subject. But I don't have too much trouble believing that all blame belongs on the editors, and not Lewis. :)

2 1

Note to CyberPatrol's Susan Getgood (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:19:00 -0700 From: "James S. Tyre" <j.s.tyre(a)worldnet.att.net> To: SusanG(a)microsys.com Cc: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Note to Susan Getgood Dear Susan: I hadn't realized that you were still on f-c, but since you've popped up a few times today, I thought that I'd use this environmentally friendly way of speaking with you. I was quite intrigued when I got an envelope from Microsys a few days ago. And I was honored that you consider me to be a colleague -- you remember how you addressed the letter -- Dear Colleague. I am, of course, quite concerned about productivity in the workplace. Why, everyone on f-c who knows me will vouch for the fact that I never do anything which is not completely work-related during the business day. So while I have to confess that I was intrigued by the offer of your corporate product, there's just one small problem: using it would go against every moral and ethical bone in my body. Granted, most attorneys may not have many of 'dem bones, so if I change my mind, I'll keep your email address on file. In the meantime, however, you can save some postage costs and even a tree branch or two if you delete me from your junk snail mail list. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, -James S. Tyre

1 0

Regulatory Risks
by wulkwa＠near.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think it's important to realize that organizations move on a slower time scale than people. The larger the organization, the longer the time scale. Thus, when looking at the government's response to anonymous transactions it would be wise to look at trends dating back to the '70s (if not earlier). Also, it's important to realize that such long-term activities are systemic in nature. Examples of government attacks on anonymous activities might include the war on drugs (especially the money laundering countermeasures). W.

1 0

Re: Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]
by koontz＠MasPar.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Other than the obvious, that elctronic media hasn't been shown to be covered by intellectual property, and that something that has been placed in the public domain, rightly or wrongly isn't confidential ... Is this a hoax?

1 0

Re: Siegel and Lewis
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Why is it that so many cypherpunks like the economist? I learned recently that Eric is a big fan. So am I. You're certainly not the first other cypherpunk to mention this. Weird. I mean, it's not exactly a radical publication... it just gets its *&#$*#$ facts right. Probably this is it. ................................................... I like it for its classy, stylish prose. And the fact that it presents an economic perspective on world events. .. Blanc

1 0

The Good Times virus ...
by bshantz＠spry.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey folks, Remember the AOL Good Times virus? Well, we just got some mail here at SPRY warning us about it. I laughed rather hard. Anyway, I told the guy who sent the mail that I would send him a number of pieces of documentation about the fact its a hoax. There was a NASA newsletter a few months back about it. I deleted it, because I thought I'd never need it again. Does anyone know where I might get a copy of that or another press release about the Goot Times hoax? I'd appreciate any help. Thnax, Brad >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>INTERNETWORKING THE DESKTOP<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Brad Shantz bshantz(a)spry.com Senior Software Engineer SPRY Inc. Direct #: (206)-442-8251 Seattle, WA 98104 WWW URL: http://WWW.SPRY.COM ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP Public Key at: http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html Or email: pgp-public-keys(a)pgp.ai.mit.edu Subj: GET bshantz >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

1 0

Re: Warning letter from Co$. [any comments ?]
by cactus＠seabsd.hks.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199501042047.PAA06797(a)cutter.clas.ufl.edu>, Avi Harris Baumstein <avi(a)clas.ufl.edu> wrote: >i know there has been much chatter on this subject, but are there >truly any precedents that could hold on the anonymous distribution of >copyrighted material? are remailer-ops truly in legal danger? what >exactly constitutes a trade secret, and what sort of laws apply? This is oddly timely. The LaMacchia decision showed that providing a service for others to use for the distribution of copyrighted material (in his case, copyrighted software) was not prosecutable under Wire Fraud statutes. The judge told the Feds, "no dice. Stop trying to applying laws to areas where they weren't intended." Civil matters are another matter, of course, but that's one avenue that's closed. - - -- Todd Masco | "life without caution/ the only worth living / love for a man/ cactus(a)hks.net | love for a woman/ love for the facts/ protectless" - A Rich Cactus' Homepage - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLwrwjBNhgovrPB7dAQHIYAP6AtRFkIqOj+vRPxUPLdGaUK9t9/pZQi8g 6HyXHBjaEA9ygX8ALQEbS3AK1a1DsqWIsOxXVivszfEY+1lmS3w93VnICjigebbf YuHpFOOgyf8IkUBslov1V7Pw0/X/blMVspyc1nDigK3KsyMi7PalAw5ECECqkhkD AizVLOZNrO0= =yOiL - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLwsrTyoZzwIn1bdtAQH9xAF/dFkiStD+csfx4ATJ76WaxrfcLPEYej+p Ec55BXkOYH+96xGLHugficY5hRjtL5eL =LPEW -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: who?
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

i'm sorry to hear the jpunix remailer is down for good-- why can't people learn to be more fuckin responsible! i guess this is just yet another inconvenience we can tank terrorists for and those aol-holes! anybody know the email address of the good samaritans? tia

1 0

Re: The Good Times virus ...
by bshantz＠spry.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to the people who've sent me copies of the CIAC announcement. That should cover my needs for right now. Hopefully I can convince these people not to worry. -- brad

1 0

Re: British Hacker Article
by pstemari＠erinet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:31 PM 1/4/95 -0500, Duncan Frissell wrote: >>From The Independent (London) Tuesday 3 January 1995 - Front Page > ... The US Defence Information >Systems Agency admitted in a private briefing, which has been confirmed, >that the hackers had affected the Department's "military readiness." "Admitted"? Probably "complained without substaniation" would be more accurate. > ... It is understood that >he invented a "sniffer" programme which searched across hundreds of >computers attached to the Internet for passwords and user names. ... If he was really behind the various password sniffers running on Netcom, etc, he has a lot of explaining to do. > ... "They contained information about >firing sites in North Korea and stuff like that. Field intelligence. He >kept detailed logs of communication traffic. ... The Korean files were on >the Girths Air Force Base computer system and therefore the could have been >accessed. ... Harumpf. Either the stuff wasn't classified, or else someone had a major security procedures breach and had classified material sitting on a computer with an uncrypted comm link. --Paul J. Ste. Marie pstemari(a)well.sf.ca.us, pstemari(a)erinet.com

1 0

gif format in newsbytes
by an172607＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CompuServe GIF License & Royalties Raises Hackles COLUMBUS, OHIO, U.S.A., 1995 JAN 4 (NB) -- On-line giant CompuServe has sparked controversy on the Internet by offering a $1-plus-royalties license for developers to use its previously free GIF (Graphics Interchange Format) image file format. CompuServe terms the fee an offer and a benefit to the on- line community, but skeptics quickly dubbed it a "GIF tax." The new fee system is based on a licensing agreement reached between CompuServe and Unisys Corp. (NYSE:UIS) in June, 1994, for use of LZW (Lempel- Zev-Welch) compression in its GIF format. Unisys has claimed a patent on LZW technology. Under the CompuServe agreement, developers who wish to operate under the on- line firm's LZW license agreement with Unisys pay a one-time fee of $1 plus a royalty of 1.5 percent or 15 cents per registered program, whichever is greater. Downloaded programs that do not get registered are not subject to the fee, nor are end-users. CompuServe announced the new fee system in various areas or "forums" of the service on December 29. The timing has led to suspicions by some that the service was not being fully honest with its members. In an open letter, Pat Clawson, president and chief executive officer (CEO) of TeleGrafix Communications Inc., called it "the online communications community's equivalent of the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor," and added: "The announcement of the CompuServe-Unisys GIF Tax on December 29, during the lull between Christmas and New Year's Day, was clearly timed to cause maximum damage while an unsuspecting public celebrated the holidays." Clawson said his firm, which developed the RIPscrip 2.0 online multimedia technology and the RIPTERM terminal program that leans heavily on the JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) image format, will drop support of GIF images because of the new fee system. RIPscrip 2.0 is scheduled for release January 16. Speaking to Newsbytes, CompuServe spokesman Pierce Reid acknowledged that the release date may have been unfortunate from a public relations viewpoint, but he said it was an accident of timing, not a desire to avoid public scrutiny. Reid pointed out that it took a year and a half to hammer out a licensing agreement with Unisys Corp. (NYSE:UIS). Unisys holds a patent on the GIF format's underlying LZW compression technology. Once the agreement with Unisys was signed in June, 1994, he added, it took CompuServe another six months to arrive at a way to, as he put it, "share" the license. "Six months is not a long time to settle the details of a licensing agreement, if you know how these things work," he told Newsbytes. "We're not making any money on this. We paid a substantial fee to Unisys for the license, and we offered to share the license for the benefit of the development community as well as for ourselves and our subscribers." Reid said the license was based on the fact that CompuServe had found merit in a Unisys patent claim. CompuServe had used the patented LZW technology in its 1987 development of the GIF format, believing the technology to be in the public domain. Unisys contacted the on-line firm about its patent claim in 1993, and that eventually led to the December 29 announcement, the firm said. Commented Reid: "I've been watching the Internet, and those who are commenting are on a bell curve -- the vast majority are taking a reasonable view, but there are always those out on the extreme ends. "A number of people regard this as a real benefit. CompuServe, by requiring no money for negotiations, is saving developers from the need to waste time. There's no worrying about legal or licensing issues, and we've done that for a dollar." (Craig Menefee/19950104/Press Contact: Pierce Reid, CompuServe, 614-538-4571; Pat Clawson, TeleGrafix, 714-379-2140, Internet e-mail rip.support(a)telegrafix.com; Oliver Picher, Unisys, 215-986-5367) Unisys Seeks Royalties On GIF Algorithm BLUE BELL, PENNSYLVANIA, U.S.A., 1995 JAN 4 (NB) -- Unisys Corp. (NYSE:UIS) said it will seek royalty payments from developers of software using the Graphic Interchange Format (GIF). Unisys said it owns rights to an algorithm that is widely used in GIF tools. Oliver Picher, a spokesman for Unisys, told Newsbytes that the online service CompuServe introduced the GIF format in 1987, and incorporated the Unisys algorithm, apparently believing it was in the public domain. Unisys learned that the algorithm was used in the GIF technology about two years ago, contacted CompuServe, and in June, 1994, the companies reached an agreement under which CompuServe paid Unisys an undisclosed sum for use of the algorithm. The payment was "a reasonable amount but not an overwhelming amount," Picher said, declining to reveal the exact sum. CompuServe was the first to license the algorithm from Unisys for use in a GIF tool, Picher said, but about 100 companies have licensed it for other purposes. Picher said one other online information service has already licensed the algorithm, but could not say if it was for GIF-related use in that case. Unisys is negotiating with all the major online services for possible license agreements, Picher said. While he would not give specifics, he said the terms Unisys is seeking are "very reasonable to the point where license fees shouldn't be a barrier" to using GIF. He added that people who have GIF software on their PCs will not be affected. The same algorithm is also used in the Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) graphics format, and Unisys concluded a license agreement with Aldus Corp. some time ago, Picher said. (Grant Buckler/19950104/Press Contact: Oliver Picher, Unisys, 215-986-5367) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized, and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0