December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[Quasi-RFC] RNG_DEVICE Standard
by Robert Rothenburg 'Walking-Owl' 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The URL below has a proposal/ideas for an RNG_DEVICE standard: http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/rng_std.htm Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. (This isn't an official RFC.) Please feel free to forward this message to interested parties. Rob ----- "The word to kill ain't dirty | Robert Rothenburg (WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com) I used it in the last line | http://www.asb.com/usr/wlkngowl/ but use a short word for lovin' | Se habla PGP: Reply with the subject and dad you wind up doin' time." | 'send pgp-key' for my public key.

1 0

Re: Export proposal
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:56 AM 12/30/96 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >What about a fax? That has to make things more complicated, yes? A fax is transmission in electronic form. Clearly banned under the regulations. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

3 2

Tired of VuliSpams?
by Ray Arachelian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's simple, if you are tired of this turd's posts, just send a message to PSI. here's all the relevant info. Don't bother sending complaints to postmaster(a)dm.com, vulis owns that domain so he is the postmaster of it. However, to quote the last PSI guy I spoke to: "If he continues, it becomes contractual" In other words, Vulis gets to find himself without a provider. Thanks. sundernet1# whois dm.com D&M Consulting Services (DM-DOM) 67-67 Burns Street Forest Hills, NY 11375 Domain Name: DM.COM Administrative Contact: Administration, PSINet Domain (PDA4) psinet-domain-admin(a)PSI.COM ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (703) 904-4100 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Network Information and Support Center (PSI-NISC) hostinfo(a)psi.com (518) 283-8860 Billing Contact: Andrews, Ken (KA16) domain-fee-contact(a)PSI.COM ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 703-904-4100 Record last updated on 31-Oct-96. Record created on 19-Jun-91. Domain servers in listed order: NS.PSI.NET 192.33.4.10 NS2.PSI.NET 38.8.50.2 The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information (Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's). Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information. =====================================Kaos=Keraunos=Kybernetos============== .+.^.+.| Ray Arachelian | "If you're gonna die, die with your|./|\. ..\|/..|sunder(a)sundernet.com|boots on; If you're gonna try, just |/\|/\ <--*-->| ------------------ |stick around; Gonna cry? Just move along|\/|\/ ../|\..| "A toast to Odin, |you're gonna die, you're gonna die!" |.\|/. .+.v.+.|God of screwdrivers"| --Iron Maiden "Die With Your Boots on"|..... ======================== http://www.sundernet.com =========================

1 0

Re: New crypto regulations
by Hal Finney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Mike McNally <m5(a)tivoli.com> > solman(a)MIT.EDU wrote: > > The government's claim is that in the interests of national security, > > export of cryptography must be prevented. By limiting the policy's > > applicability to media which are in, or can easily be converted to, > > electronic form ... > > Does anybody seriously believe that nbody writing these policies has > an understanding of OCR software? An on-line form of code printed > in a book is just a quick trip to a scanner away. They know that. The regs, as Lucky pointed out, do hint at restrictions on OCR fonts in the future. However this is obviously doomed since as OCR technology advances the distinction between OCR and non-OCR fonts will vanish. I imagine that a special purpose character recognition engine could be built to work on any known, monospaced font, as is typically used for source code. In this light, the explicit exemption for printed materials is really quite welcome. It has never been 100% clear that a book of source code is exportable. Yes, we've had some favorable court cases recently but none of these have been fully resolved. Rumors were posted here that the NSA came very close to trying to stop the export of the original PGP source code book from MIT Press (and supposedly arranged for MIT to be punished later for its audacity). Having all sides agree that crypto source code can be exported in printed form is an important step in the right direction. We can still contest the issue of restrictions on machine readable exports. In an era where electronic publishing is becoming as important as paper publishing for expressing ideas, we can continue to push to extend the exemption to machine-readable images of the pages of the book, and later to actual source files. Hal

3 2

Re: With my deepest regards....
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-29 16:00:50 EST, dthorn(a)gte.net (Dale Thorn) writes: << Adam Breaux wrote: > I am withdrawing from this list. Not because of the volume of > email...that I can deal with...but what I cannot deal with is the > volume of garbage and egotistical ranting that seems so prevalent in > what should for all sakes and purposes be a discussion of cyphering > and security. Apparently the name of this list is designed to > mislead...because of all the posts, a grand total of 5% proved worth > reading at all. Note to cypherpunks: This guy complains about the problem, but he *is* the problem. *He* wants to tell us *he's* leaving. Talk about ego- tistical ranting! What a hypocrite. BTW, 5% is a pretty good percentage in my book. >> Since I never said I dont contribute to the problem.. I think Ill point out... that in a reverse notion...He isn't the problem. What you replied back is the problem. I DONT see this list (the other 95%) filled with people saying that they dont like the list. So..since he isnt the other 95% (maybe >0.5% complain) and you with a useless post... are (is) the porblem. I know this post back doesn''t 'help' but I think it brings to light problems with a list that exists for a purpose. Think of it as a democracy on a list. It exists for a reason.. and the people support THAT existence.

2 1

[STEGO] BBN
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy May has been fired from Intel for stealing office supplies. ( )( )________ Timothy May /00 \ _ O_\\--mm---mm /_______)

1 0

Re: New crypto regulations
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:57 AM 12/30/96 -0800, Hal Finney wrote: >The regs, as Lucky pointed out, do hint at restrictions on OCR fonts in >the future. However this is obviously doomed since as OCR technology >advances the distinction between OCR and non-OCR fonts will vanish. >I imagine that a special purpose character recognition engine could be >built to work on any known, monospaced font, as is typically used for >source code. It seems to me that the authors of the regulations have come to the same conclusion. Which is why the ban on scannable text is not in the current version of the regs. But the regulators want to see scannable source banned that much is clear. At the same time, they do not want to run up against the wide ranging protections printed speech enjoys. I expect the solution ultimately employed to use a method similar to what is currently used in color copiers and digital audio mastering equipment. Normal color copiers will copy just about all colors except the particular shade of green used in US currency. Consumer digital audio recording equipment makes use of copy protection features. Only hideously expensive "professional" equipment has the copy protection turned off. We might see something similar for printed source and OCR programs. Printed source will have to be printed in a specific font. A font that OCR programs are required to not recognize. OCR programs that do recognize this specific font will of course be export controlled. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

3 2

(Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. May's offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. I have made overtures towards peace and tried to explain that I thought that the Doctor's verbal slapping was not as bad as it seemed, maybe even he deserved it!. He refuses to answer. He's just a pussy, I guess. Like's to make terroristic threats. To Nam vets, yet. Ballsy, Tim! Maybe the Doctor is not to far from wrong. I would rather have discussed this with you in private e-mail, or over a few beers, but you refuse to answer my e-mail. Received: from you.got.net (root(a)scir-gotnet.znet.net [207.167.86.126]) by adnetsol.adnetsol.com (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA29906 for <rwright(a)adnetsol.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 20:25:14 -0800 Received: from [207.167.93.63] (tcmay.got.net [207.167.93.63]) by you.got.net (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id UAA13732 for <rwright(a)adnetsol.com>; Fri, 27 Dec 1996 20:17:45 -0800 X-Real-To: <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> X-Sender: tcmay(a)mail.got.net Message-Id: <v03007800aeea52e5d282(a)[207.167.93.63]> In-Reply-To: <199612230801.AAA24862(a)adnetsol.adnetsol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 20:32:00 -0800 To: "Ross Wright" <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> Subject: Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things. X-PMFLAGS: 35127424 0 ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 20:32:00 -0800 To: "Ross Wright" <rwright(a)adnetsol.com> From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> Subject: Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things. At 12:09 AM -0800 12/23/96, Ross Wright wrote: >hard on him. This latest rant of his has made me reconsider your >rough treatment of Mr. May. I kinda think he deserves a slapping >right now. Go ahead with your "slapping." Of course, I'd treat a "slapping" as an assault. I'd love to put a clip of hollowpoints through your chest. Your place or mine? Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------: ---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

So secure no technology avail in the world capable of breaking it
by ! Drive 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From Risks 18.70... Date: 20 Dec 96 15:13:17 EST From: Andrew Weir <100637.616(a)CompuServe.COM> Subject: ATM gangsters Much British media panic has been devoted to the recent conviction of an "ATM gang" of high ambition. A collection of high-grade villains with impeccable pedigrees in robbery, gangsterism and drugs dealing over 30 years compelled a software expert who was in prison for attacking his wife and child to help them in their enterprise. The man revealed his role to a prison chaplain and subsequently acted as an undercover informer on his release. [...] Code-breaking gangsters? But could they have got that far? Newspaper reports failed to emphasise the all-important question as to whether the encrypted information could be decoded. Defence counsel were scathing about the possibilities and called experts to testify that it was effectively impossible. One of the defence barristers said: "The basic method was fatally flawed ... because the encryption system used by the banks is so secure that no current technology available in the world, not even the combined expertise of the world's leading scientists, is capable of breaking it." The judge appeared to accept this, with a proviso. Addressing the defendants, he said in sentencing them: "It was not possible for you, with the equipment and expertise then at your disposal, to carry out this fraud to a successful conclusion. There is, in particular, no evidence that the cards recovered by the police would then work or that the codes had then been broken. However, beyond that I'm not prepared to go. I do not believe it is necessary to go further but for the avoidance of doubt I make it clear that it would, in my judgment, be irresponsible and wrong on the basis of the information before me to accept any additional assurances along the lines that this is a fraud that no one could ever commit." Lawyers being what they are, the judge could not exclude the possibility that the decryption was possible, even though the remoteness of that possibility does not seem to have struck home, particularly when it is considered that the gang's only computer expert was working against them. The gang's expert claimed no expertise in cryptography and yet said in evidence that there had been a successful decryption dry run. This was not corroborated elsewhere, and the judge did not accept it. [...] http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks

1 0

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:15 PM 12/29/1996, Timothy C. May wrote: >This fascist move by the U.S. government is a huge threat to our liberty. >It may be time to simply give up on communicating with these assholes and >give them the treatment they have earned. > ... >And this a very big one indeed. Not only does it probably put organizations >like C2 out of business, at least in terms of supporting the development of >things like the South African and British Web products, but it also may >mean the *Cypherpunks list itself*, and some of its members, are ipso facto >in violation of this "giving comfort to the enemy" (to paraphrase) language! > ... >This very list advocates violation of the ITARs in various ways (I speak of >"the list" as a person in the sense of the consensus of the list...there >may not be unanimity, but the consensus of the vocal members of the list is >obvious). > > >It may be time for us to go underground. It may be time to take much, much, >much, much more extreme steps. This fascism is unacceptable. While Tim May has had many many great ideas, this is not one of them. To paraphrase Joseph Stalin: Tim, how many divisions do you have? The cypherpunks have virtually no force at all. If the battle is moved to that arena, the cypherpunks (and everybody else) lose big time. If the cypherpunks manage to pull off some sort of "extreme step", those who aren't shot while resisting arrest will go to prison. Worst of all, most people will applaud the action. "Extreme steps" legitimize the radical proposals of the Clipper crowd. While I wouldn't go so far as to say "I feel your pain", I am sympathetic with the frustration you must feel when your own government is the greatest threat to all that it is right and decent. But, "extreme steps" are the wrong approach and play right into the hands of the defense establishment. It saves them the trouble of implementing a "strategy of tension." The right approach is to continually reiterate that the cypherpunks are mainstream and fairly conservative. Many of us like the "bad boy" image, but most of what has been proposed is very solidly rooted in American traditions. If the ITAR regulations can be amended to make discussions on this list a "conspiracy", then they are very likely unconstitutional. Article I, Section I, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States..." Pretty unambiguous. We should not underestimate the broad public support for private communications which exists in the United States. Even people who are unfamiliar with the issue are shocked when they learn that the U.S. government is trying to gain access to all communications. The only people who want GAK are in the government. There is no constituency in the population which wants it, and quite a few that do not. The more publicly the issue is discussed and the more actively we scrutinize the lies and deceptions of the U.S. government, the more successful we will be. The GAK crowd have not been honest or forthright in their public statements on their plans. We must reiterate this again and again and again. If they cannot be honest about their proposed policy, how can we trust them to hold the keys? Obviously, we cannot. This will be obvious to most Americans, and even some reporters. Red Rackham

11 18

Crypto reg clarification from Commerce Department
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just got of the phone with Bruce Kutz, Export Policy Analyst, Office of Strategic Trade and Foreign Policy Controls. (202) 482-0092. He seems to be the contact person for the new regs. I pointed Mr. Kutz to the section that alarmed me: Sec. 736.2 General prohibitions and determination of applicability. * * * * * (7) General Prohibition Seven--Support of Certain Activities by U.S. persons--(i) Support of Proliferation Activities (U.S. Person Proliferation Activity). If you are a U.S. Person as that term is defined in Sec. 744.6(c) of the EAR, you may not engage in any activities prohibited by Sec. 744.6 (a) or (b) of the EAR which prohibits the performance, without a license from BXA, of certain financing, contracting, service, support, transportation, freight forwarding, or employment that you know will assist in certain proliferation activities described further in part 744 of the EAR. There are no License Exceptions to this General Prohibition Seven in part 740 of the EAR unless specifically authorized in that part. Mr. Kutz seemed surprised. Apparently he had not been aware that this section was included in the new crypto regs. He then assured me that 1. Proliferation in the context of this paragraph applies only to proliferation of a) nuclear (bomb) technology b) missile technology He read to me EAR Sec. 744.6 (a) or (b), which are referred to in the paragraph in question. Sec. 744.6 (a) or (b) seems to support this view. However, he did not explain to me why the paragraph was included in the crypto export regulations when it only applies to nukes and missiles. 2. The Department of Commerce has no intention of banning the financing and contracting of non-US crypto development. 3. Technical assistance to non-US parties requires a license. Mr. Kutz encouraged me to make use of the public comment period and ask Commerce to clarify the section. Public comments will be accepted until February 13, 1997. [Public comment is requested only after the new regs took effect...] I received the impression that Mr. Kutz genuinely believes that the section in question does not apply to crypto. If I was concerned about potentially violating the regulations, I would try to get a written statement from Commerce that Mr. Kutz's view is indeed correct. As always, IANAL. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm

1 0

Re: New crypto regulations (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 15:57:28 -0800 > From: Mark Johnson <mark(a)hercules.reno.nv.us> > > To hell with it, lets just send it over a modem and claim its Analog not > electronic transfer. If MA-Bell (or sibling) wants to change it from > Analog to Digital for overseas transfer then THEY can go after MA-Bell. > Then if we can't do that then we would not even be allowed to discuss > cryptography (code) verbally as it all gets transformed to electrons now > anyway. The distinction between analog and digital is a technicality and not a distinction I want my civil liberties hanging from. An analog signal is just a digital signal with a word length greater than the resolution of the machine. Also one can claim that because electricity is carried by distinct charges it is digital. Counter this is that the charges themselves can take on multiplicity of ranges. A digital signal is just a analog signal of on and off, direct current one might say that is simply turned on and off. Ad nausium... > What is the difference between me reading(using sound waves) code line > by line to John Doe versus having my computer(using sound waves) > communicating to John Does's computer,Tape Recorder(high quality), or > his well atuned ear which understands MODEMese (or was that MODEMonics)? Realisticaly nothing. The real discussion going on here, broken into a multiplicity of special interests pov's, is whether we as individuals have a right to communicate to each other and exactly under what conditions that communication can be monitored, manipulated, prohibited, etc. Balancing the theory behind democracy and multiplicity of views versus the prohibition of various types of acts, distinct and class(ical), which pose threats to individuals, groups, and potentialy national interests is the point... If looked at rationaly, saying I can tell you something if written in a particular code, alphabetic and artistic issues at point, on a certain type of material is ok while if I transfer the identical information using some other code and media it is not is looney tunes. The 'control' types would like us to believe that media is the real issue here, not what is actualy being said. A point easily confused by somebody who doesn't know what the word(s) mean. A very popular view, and not one I consider 'bad', is that we should err on the side of safety. This means that we don't change the status quo too fast. Not necessarily because we like the results being measured in human misery but because while we might relieve their misery in the short term we might 'unbalance' the political situation. History is rife with the results of such periods. However, I balance this with the realisation that once it is clear something needs to be done it is better to go ahead and commit to the results even though we recognise a priori that some results may not necessarily be to our liking. We just have to deal with them when we figure out which ones they are. The trick between these two is to find a 'litmus test' which will provide an observer some sort of measure of their position between the two (or more) positions. Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Crypto reg clarification from Commerce Department
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: >I just got of the phone with Bruce Kutz, Export Policy Analyst, Office of >Strategic Trade and Foreign Policy Controls. (202) 482-0092. He seems to be >the contact person for the new regs. Well done, Lucky. This is what's needed to kick off a lot of commentary during the next 45-days. Backed by research, to be sure. The outpouring of such commentary on the full EAR from May 1995 to March 1996 shaped the final document, and that process is an excellent case study for how to affect the final form of the latest crypto regs. It's worth perusing the full EAR in the Federal Register: March 25, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 58), Pages 12713 et seq. for 325 pages (well over a 2.5MB -- it's also on our site, see URL below). Here's the portion of the EAR that Lucky and Kutz discussed: [Page 12805] Sec. 744.6 Restrictions on certain activities of U.S. persons. (a) General prohibitions--(1) Activities related to exports. (i) No U.S. person as defined in paragraph (c) of this section may, without a license from BXA, export, reexport, or transfer to or in any country other country, any item where that person knows that such item: (A) Will be used in the design, development, production, or use of nuclear explosive devices in or by a country listed in Country Group D:2 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR). (B) Will be used in the design, development, production, or use of missiles in or by a country listed in Country Group D:4 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR); or (C) Will be used in the design, development, production, stockpiling, or use of chemical or biological weapons in or by a country listed in Country Group D:3 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR). (ii) No U.S. person shall, without a license from BXA, knowingly support an export, reexport, or transfer that does not have a license as required by this section. Support means any action, including financing, transportation, and freight forwarding, by which a person facilitates an export, reexport, or transfer without being the actual exporter or reexporter. (2) Other activities unrelated to exports. No U.S. person shall, without a license from BXA: (i) Perform any contract, service, or employment that the U.S. person knows will directly assist in the design, development, production, or use of missiles in or by a country listed in Country Group D:4 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR); or (ii) Perform any contract, service, or employment that the U.S. person knows directly will directly assist in the design, development, production, stockpiling, or use of chemical or biological weapons in or by a country listed in Country Group D:3 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR). (3) Whole plant requirement. No U.S. person shall, without a license from BXA, participate in the design, construction, export, or reexport of a whole plant to make chemical weapons precursors identified in ECCN 1C350, in countries other than those listed in Country Group A:3 (Australia Group) (See Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR). (b) Additional prohibitions on U.S. persons informed by BXA. BXA may inform U.S. persons, either individually or through amendment to the EAR, that a license is required because an activity could involve the types of participation and support described in paragraph (a) of this section anywhere in the world. Specific notice is to be given only by, or at the direction of, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. When such notice is provided orally, it will be followed by a written notice within two working days signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. However, the absence of any such notification does not excuse the exporter from compliance with the license requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. (c) Definition of U.S. person. For purposes of this section, the term U.S. person includes: (1) Any individual who is a citizen of the United States, a permanent resident alien of the United States, or a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3); (2) Any juridical person organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, including foreign branches; and (3) Any person in the United States. (d) Exceptions. No License Exceptions apply to the prohibitions described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (e) License review standards. Applications to engage in activities otherwise prohibited by this section will be denied if the activities would make a material contribution to the design, development, production, stockpiling, or use of chemical or biological weapons, or of missiles. ----- The EAR covers all kinds of exports, so encryption and cryptography provisions are found by searching. The Federal Register published it in seven 50 page chunks, and is available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html Enter the search term: "Page 12713" (with quotes; repeat six times in sequence). We've combined the seven parts for searching: http://jya.com/ear032596.txt (2,570K)

1 0

what is a law if it cant be enforced?
by mrwilhe＠odin.cmp.ilstu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

can our gov possibly enforce this crypto law? --esp over the net? I think what happend is the dod released the net (arpanet/Internet) to the people without looking at the implications that could arise. The people now control the net and not the gov--and they don't like it! anyway our government is ruled by the people for the people--so we should not have any kind of special laws--ones that only apply to the net and not the rest of the world, after all we have a thing called free speech! fsh

1 0

CAVE
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CAVE is available at URL: http://www.replay.com/mirror/cave/ Enjoy, -AJ-

1 0

RE: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Ross Wright This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. May's offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. I have made overtures towards peace and tried to explain that I thought that the Doctor's verbal slapping was not as bad as it seemed, maybe even he deserved it!. He refuses to answer. He's just a pussy, I guess. Like's to make terroristic threats. To Nam vets, yet. Ballsy, Tim! ....................................................... You have to understand - Tim is from California. In some areas of the country showing someone your middle finger is the universal hand signal for "shoot me". If you are carrying a gun and give such a hand signal you likely to be held at fault if the shooting does start. If you choose to carry, you will be held to a higher standard of behavior than those that don't. -Greg Hamilton- Self Defense Instructor Nov. 19, 1995 .. Blanc

3 2

None
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:41 AM 12/25/1996, Anonymous wrote that Noam Chomsky said: >More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and the >population is very much open to them. Despite a huge mass of corporate >propaganda, outside of educated circles, people still maintain pretty much >their traditional attitudes. In the US, for example, more than 80% of the >population regard the economic system as inherently unfair and the >political system as a fraud, which serves the special interests, not the >people. Overwhelming majorities think working people have too little voice >in public affairs (the same is true in England), that the government has >the responsibility of assisting people in need, that spending for education >and health should take precedence over budget-cutting and tax cuts, that >the current Republican proposals that are sailing through Congress benefit >the rich and harm the general population, and so on. Intellectuals may tell >a different story, but it's not all that difficult to find out the facts. Can anybody explain in what way Chomsky is an anarchist or a libertarian? Opposition to some government schemes but not others makes a Republican or a Democrat, not an anarchist or libertarian. Chomsky is a smart man. What's he up to? Sir Galahad

3 2

US AIRFORCE SITE HACKED
by BJORN2LUZE＠prodigy.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It is true, so many government sites have been hacked! The FBI home page was replaced with SATANIC stuff. A picture of the upside down cross as a background and various other changes regarding SATAN. i think it's funny, but hey it's our own goverment. I wonder how often they check their sites. BTW, my friends site - http://pages.prodigy.com/VT/hackersguide has a link to the FBI's MOST WANTED LIST. See if you are there!

2 1

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Parents who send their children to government operated schools should read this: http://www.fni.com/heritage/nov96/Exams.html

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:33 PM 12/30/96 -0800, Ross Wright wrote: >This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. May's >offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. His comments were not "offensive, racist, and bigoted." They were funny, intentionally so. The whole "Ebonics" issue is a hilarious example of political-correctness gone mad. Interestingly, Jesse Jackson tried to make it look like the blacks were the victims, the ones most offended by the actions of the Oakland schools people. Embarrassed, maybe, victims no. (A friend of mine greatly prefers the term, "Niglish." I try hard to not be so...coarse.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Responsibility
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Duvos writes: >Brent E. Turvey (bturvey(a)connix.com) wrote: > >: This NG is not a certified twelve-step program operating under >: anonymity. This is not even a group of people in recovery operating >: under any kind of professional guidance at all. It is in essence a >: PUBLIC FORUM on a given topic. There are no secrets, and no reasonable >: expectation of privacy. There is also no necessitation for legal >: confidance. > >This has been discussed before. Most people are aware of how Usenet >works, and people who don't want their posts linked to their real >life identities can post anonymously. > >: It's also unmoderated. Anyone can look in at any time that they want and >: review any posts current and past that they see fit thanks to the good >: people at Dejanews. And anyone can post whatever they want. > >Yup. > >: However there are a number of individuals engaged in exploitative >: behaviors with the survivors here and other places on the net. Any >: therapist or other certified mental health professional can give you a >: better and more complete definition of "exploitative behaviors" than I >: could do here. > >Changing our tune a bit, aren't we Brent? The infamous list was >advertised as a list of predatory offenders and abusers. Now it >seems to be just a list of people whose Usenet interactions with >others you choose to characterize as "exploitative." > >: It is mainly for the reason of professional ethics and responsibility >: that I posted the list of people to be careful of earlier this month. >: Incumbent in that responsibility is my desire to offer potential victims >: a survival tool. > >Quite frankly, Brent, you offering the survivors in this newsgroup a >"survival tool" is much like a person on fire offering a gathering of >penguins an ice cube. The patrons of this newsgroup are Past Masters >of survival. You, on the other hand, are a master only of sticking >your foot into one bodily opening, while simultaneously sticking your >head up another. > >: By posting that list, I made it totally available to not >: only the frequent and infrequent subscribers to aar, to explore on their >: own as they see fit, but to the law enforcement agencies who now monitor >: usenet as well. > >Who, I am sure, are laughing hysterically at all of this. Please >continue to pee on your chances of ever doing this professionally >at every opportunity. > >: No strict personal agenda; only a professional one. No personal attacks. >: Just observations of behavior. > >Goodness Brent, do you really think we need you to observe peoples >behavior for us? Most of us who have been around the Net since the >clever little protocols were designed by the engineers, and who can >even remember events like "The Great Renaming", and the origins of >Kibo, are fairly astute judges of human behavior. We have seen >all sides of every imaginable issue argued from every conceivable >perspective, and we know the names of all the major players and >where they stand on each one. > >: -- >: Brent E. Turvey, MSc Forensic Science >: bturvey(a)connix.com >: http://www.connix.com/~bturvey/profile.html > >Anyone want to join me in nominating Mr. Turvey for the coveted "KOTM" >degree? I think... > > Brent E. Turvey, MSc Forensic Science, KOTM Usenet > >has a very nice ring to it. He's definitely goofier than Drs. Grubor >and Vulis. I also suggest you visit his unintentionally funny writings >on autoerotic asphyxiation on the Web. Brent is a man of many talents. :) > >-- > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ > mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $ > Is Brent as goofy as the ASALA terrorist (about to be fired by Earthweb for net-abuse), or even goofier? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

3 3

Building PGP on Freebsd?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I get this message at the end, for building with the netbsd or the 386bsd config file. I know theres a simple tweak, can someone remind me what it is? Thanks, Adam gcc -o pgp pgp.o crypto.o keymgmt.o fileio.o mdfile.o more.o armor.o mpilib.o mpiio.o genprime.o rsagen.o random.o idea.o passwd.o md5.o system.o language.o getopt.o keyadd.o config.o keymaint.o charset.o randpool.o noise.o zbits.o zdeflate.o zfile_io.o zglobals.o zinflate.o zip.o zipup.o ztrees.o zunzip.o rsaglue2.o _80386.o _zmatch.o ../rsaref/install/unix/rsaref.a rsaglue2.o: Definition of symbol `_NN_ModExp' (multiply defined) -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

2 2

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 18:16, jim bell wrote: > At 04:33 PM 12/30/96 -0800, Ross Wright wrote: > >This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. > >May's offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. > > > His comments were not "offensive, racist, and bigoted." They were Be that as it may, it is still no call for threats of gunplay! That is NOT funny. I take such things very seriously. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

4 3

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 19:12, Ross Wright wrote: > On or About 30 Dec 96 at 18:16, jim bell wrote: > > > At 04:33 PM 12/30/96 -0800, Ross Wright wrote: > > >This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. > > >May's offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. > > > > > > His comments were not "offensive, racist, and bigoted." They were > > Be that as it may, it is still no call for threats of gunplay! That > is NOT funny. I take such things very seriously. Funny, yeah real funny. In other words: I'll popa cap in the motherfuckers ass just for him thinkin he gonna draw down on me! It just makes me more and more pissed off! I gotta have a cuppa coffe, and calm down! Ross

2 1

RE: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 18:03, Blanc Weber wrote: > You have to understand - Tim is from California. > If you choose to carry, you will be held to a higher standard of > behavior > than those that don't. Yes, part of that "higher standard" is to keep your fucking mouth shut about that piece in your sholder holster. Those that brag that they are packing and won't hesitate to use it are usually those that freeze under fire or snap at the workplace. A true shooter shut's the fuck up and if needs be, let's the weapon do the talking when the time is right. That mutually assured destruction shit only works for governments. In this day and age you better think EVERYONE'S packing, and if you shoot your mouth off about your little pea shooter you just make yourself a target for the first shot fired. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

3 2

Re: Crypto reg clarification from Commerce Department
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I believe that Kutz is speaking the truth. Keep in mind the paragraph with which you're concerned is not the meat of what's being amended. That lies in the next line, Section 736.2(b)(7)(ii), which reads: You may not, without a license from BXA, provide certain technical assistance to foreign persons with respect to encryption items, as described in Sec. 744.9 of the EAR. "Technical assistance" is still troubling, but not as much as investment would be. Assistance is aimed at training, and the regulations somewhat exempt classroom discussions. Of course, the uncertainty and the potential chilling effects are good reasons to continue with the court challenges. -Declan --- > I just got of the phone with Bruce Kutz, Export Policy Analyst, Office of > Strategic Trade and Foreign Policy Controls. (202) 482-0092. He seems to be > the contact person for the new regs. > > I pointed Mr. Kutz to the section that alarmed me: > > Sec. 736.2 General prohibitions and determination of applicability. > > * * * * * > > (7) General Prohibition Seven--Support of Certain Activities by > U.S. persons--(i) Support of Proliferation Activities (U.S. Person > Proliferation Activity). If you are a U.S. Person as that term is > defined in Sec. 744.6(c) of the EAR, you may not engage in any > activities prohibited by Sec. 744.6 (a) or (b) of the EAR which > prohibits the performance, without a license from BXA, of certain > financing, contracting, service, support, transportation, freight > forwarding, or employment that you know will assist in certain > proliferation activities described further in part 744 of the EAR. > There are no License Exceptions to this General Prohibition Seven in > part 740 of the EAR unless specifically authorized in that part. > > Mr. Kutz seemed surprised. Apparently he had not been aware that this > section was included in the new crypto regs. He then assured me that > > 1. Proliferation in the context of this paragraph applies only to > proliferation of > a) nuclear (bomb) technology > b) missile technology > > He read to me EAR Sec. 744.6 (a) or (b), which are referred to in the > paragraph in question. Sec. 744.6 (a) or (b) seems to support this view. > However, he did not explain to me why the paragraph was included in the > crypto export regulations when it only applies to nukes and missiles. > > 2. The Department of Commerce has no intention of banning the financing and > contracting of non-US crypto development. > > 3. Technical assistance to non-US parties requires a license. > > Mr. Kutz encouraged me to make use of the public comment period and ask > Commerce to clarify the section. Public comments will be accepted until > February 13, 1997. [Public comment is requested only after the new regs > took effect...] > > I received the impression that Mr. Kutz genuinely believes that the section > in question does not apply to crypto. If I was concerned about potentially > violating the regulations, I would try to get a written statement from > Commerce that Mr. Kutz's view is indeed correct. As always, IANAL. > > > > -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred > Make your mark in the history of mathematics. Use the spare cycles of > your PC/PPC/UNIX box to help find a new prime. > http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm > > >

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 20:29, Graham-John Bullers wrote: > You mean we cannot choose to be RACIST BIGOTS shame on you. Sure you can, I got no problem with open disscussions of views. Any views! But a private threat of gunplay, that you have no right to! > > http://www.free > net.edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html > > : > real(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.c > a > Graham-John Bullers email > : > ab756(a)freenet.toronto.on.c > a > > Of course, I'd treat a "slapping" as an assault. I'd love to put a > > clip of hollowpoints through your chest. > > > > Your place or mine? > > > > ---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, > > digital =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

Happy New Year
by secure＠access.usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friend, If you are interested in increasing your income by using your personal contacts, Please Consider this... Make up to $400.00 per deal by giving away security systems Secure America Highlights 1. It only cost $45 to become a distributor and for that you receive a black glove leather brief case with everything you need to get started; forms, full color brochures, and a video tape telling you about the company, its product and marketing plan. 2. The company offers 100% financing to those buying the product- they have four institutions and can finance most everyone. If your prospective customer gets turned down, then with a small down payment, the company will finance them - IN OTHER WORDS, - ALMOST NO TURN DOWNS! Each source, including the "company carried' contracts, will be reported to TRW; thus helping people, who have bad or no credit, gain the good credit they deserve. 3. The customer receives the system for FREE when they agree to a $29.95 per month-four year monitoring agreement, which is standard cost for a 2-way voice monitoring. They need to agree to either a debit from their checking account or credit card each month. 4. You as the distributor receive a commission of up to $400 - once the buyer is approved and financed. The company pays commission weekly. The commission is paid even before the buyer makes their first payment. And this is important. There are never any charge backs! 5. You, as the distributor can sign up others distributors and receive bonuses of $120 to $320 per sale from distributors under you. The marketing plan offers a very attractive bonus plan. By signing up one new distributor, who does the same within a month, and this pattern continues with each new person only bringing one new distributor, there would be more than 4,000 distributors in your organization at the end of a year. Keep in mind that you only brought in one person each month. If each person in your organization sold only one system per month, your income would be more than $800,000 the first year! What if your organization only did 1/3 of that? Would you be excited? 6. You can set up businesses who can give these away as premiums to their customers, Carpet dealers, appliance dealers, auto dealers, real estate offices, home improvement companies, just to name a few, can give their customers a certificate for a free system upon activation of a four year monitoring contract. The certificate will have your name on it and all they have to do is contact you for the system. You get them approved and get the commission - It's that simple! If you want, you can pay the business a referral fee of say $25, $50, or $100 or even better yet sign them up as a distributor and get continuing overrides and bonuses on them. 7. No Installation worries on your part. The system is wireless, needs no professional installer and comes with an installation video that walks the customer through the installation process. Installation will take about 20-30 minutes. 8. You can market to both home owners and renters - in fact, nobody is going after the rental market at this time. Think about it, do renters want any less protection than homeowners? What a gold mine! When someone moves, they take their security system with them and set it up, with our nationwide monitoring company, at their new location (keep in mind that the system is hooked up to the customers' regular phone line). 9. No Inventory. You do not have to buy anything or make a huge investments in products just to store them in your garage. Once you sign someone up for a system, you turn the paperwork into the company, they process the application (usually within 48 hours), and ship the system to the customer - no deliver or installation hassles for you! 10. No Accounting. The company keeps track of everything for you and give you a computer printout of your sales and organizational activity each month. 11. The Need. September 17, 1996 U.S. Justice Department statistics show that last year burglaries, theft, and theft of motor vehicles were 288 per 1,000 households and yet only 15% of the homes in America have security systems. We can offer monitored protection and peace of mind for only $1 a day and save 10-20% on home insurance premiums. 12. The Equipment. TWO-WAY VOICE systems let the monitoring company listen throughout the home (after alarm activation) for burglaries, medical, or emergency needs, or fire department help. In fact more and more cities are starting to charge non two-way system owners for false alarms. 13. The Company. Secure America has spent more than two years in developing this state of the art equipment system, marketing plan, and available $100 million in financing. This is a one of a king company - no inventory to stock - no huge investments - no money up from the buyer - weekly payment of sales bonuses - and there is NO Competition for this type of system at this price. 14. The Opportunity. What a great feeling! We get to Give Away a system that can do so much for family safety and peace of mind. And whether you would like to make an extra $300 a month or have visions of grandeur, this program can satisfy your needs. The financial bottom line... There will be many millionaires made through Secure America in the next few years. ________________________________________________ Product Package Information: 3000M Gardsman Alarm System - Monitoring Fee $24.95/Month Main Unit(3000M) X1 Motion Sensors X2 Magnetic Sensors X2 Keychain Remote controls X1 Strobe light Siren X1 Window Decals X2 Commission-$200 5000M Gardsman Alarm System - Monitoring Fee $29.95/Month Main Unit(5000M) X1 Motion Sensors X2 Magnetic Sensors X2 Keychain Remote controls X2 Strobe light Siren X1 Window Decals X4 Lawn Sign X1 Commission-$300 For an application, Please Email me your fax number or Mailing address and phone number. Look forward to hearing from you or call our Fax on Demand 1 703-736-1600 Doc#280

2 1

Re: With my deepest regards....
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-30 17:46:12 EST, you write: << AwakenToMe(a)aol.com wrote: > Adam Breaux wrote: > > I am withdrawing from this list. Not because of the volume of > > email...that I can deal with...but what I cannot deal with is the > > volume of garbage and egotistical ranting[snippo] > Note to cypherpunks: This guy complains about the problem, but he *is* > the problem. *He* wants to tell us *he's* leaving. Talk about ego- > tistical ranting! What a hypocrite. > Since I never said I dont contribute to the problem.. I think Ill point > out... that in a reverse notion...He isn't the problem. What you replied > back is the problem. Argumentum ad nauseam. The point is, Adam (I think) wanted to tell us he's leaving. Well, who gives a shit, anyway? Instead of ranting against me, tell the cypherpunks why they should care that this particular individual is "leaving the list". >> he did: =-} <<I am withdrawing from this list. Not because of the volume of email...that I can deal with...but what I cannot deal with is the volume of garbage and egotistical ranting that seems so prevalent in what should for all sakes and purposes be a discussion of cyphering and security. Apparently the name of this list is designed to mislead...because of all the posts, a grand total of 5% proved worth reading at all.>>

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some peckerhead soiled my mailbox with: >This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. May's >offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. I have made >overtures towards peace and tried to explain that I thought that the >Doctor's verbal slapping was not as bad as it seemed, maybe even he >deserved it!. He refuses to answer. He's just a pussy, I guess. >Like's to make terroristic threats. To Nam vets, yet. Ballsy, Tim! Thank you for playing, Mr. Grubor. Please pick up your consolation prize at the door marked "Out." And stop passing Dimbulb the mailing list messages -- you know it makes the tumors in his head kick in. >I would rather have discussed this with you in private e-mail, or >over a few beers, but you refuse to answer my e-mail. Maybe he has you filtered, as the rest of us will now. *plonk* (I'd prob'ly buy him the hollowpoints, btw.)

2 1

WinSock Remailer Now Operating Normally
by Joey Grasty 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Y'all: The WinSock Remailer, operating at winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net, is back up and operating normally. Regards, Joey Grasty Jim Ray WinSock Remailer Operators -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMsh/qw6sYKeTQAOtAQEXnwL7B53vpSeyb7PbR+g+X7PK1KsEG9sqr1ws Uf9tymq7fJNGHmDl/+7V7asL/i0hmZPLm/XiIniMyutfXCGFWGNQ8kYAvlarq2yp t3wSKo/TJkgIZERaziAa5gTD77mQcnXT =VrpC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Ebonite Notes from All Over
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1. J. Jackson apparently now finds "ebonics" to be a "Goot Thang"(SM): _S.F. Examiner_ reporter Venise (sic) Wagner headlines in the paper's Web site today that "Jackson backs Oakland 'ebonics.' Rights leader switches position after hearing about program in detail." Says Jackson: "The first message the came out was that the district was going to make black language equitable (sic) as another language. That is not the idea." Is Mr. Jackson speaking in Ebonics? 2. From "A Brief History of Plastics": "Ebonite (TM) is produced by heating natural rubber with about 10% by weight of sulpher. This is about five time more sulpher than would be used in conventional vulcanisation. The material is hard, black and tough and bears a striking resemblance to the hardwood, ebony--hence its name. The main use for ebonite in the early 1800s was in piano keys." 3. Although Ebonite International sponsors the Professional Bowling Association's "Ebonite Classic" tournament, the Official ABC/WIBC Ruling on Ball Cleaners, as at 9/12/96, has ruled that their 1-and-2-Step Reactive Resin Ball Cleaners "cannot be used during ABC/WIBC sanctioned competition because it would be in violation of Rule 19." But take heart: the American Bowling Conference Equipment Specifications Department has decided that "these products are allowed before or after league and/or tournament sessions." 4. What's the difference between a bowling ball and a black woman? If you're really, really hungry, you can always eat the bowling ball. N.B. I personally find #4 above to be racist, sick, and not very "funny" at all.

3 2

RE: Iranian clergic attacks Internet as 'poison' to the m...
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: RE: Iranian clergic attacks Internet as 'poison' to the masses ( vipul(a)pobox.com wrote: >*** Iranian clergic attacks Internet as 'poison' to the masses >A senior Iranian cleric called Friday for restricting Internet access >because the global computer network fed "poison" to the masses. I have seen this article elsewhere, and the sentiment is not as nefarious as it sounds. You may know that many Arabic and Persian countries have a heavy exposure to French. In this case, the confusion arises due to the similarity between the English "poison" and the French "poisson" which means fish. Restated, the problem is that the Internet is feeding "fish" to the masses in the form of information, hence the masses are not feeding themselves. A similar English adage is: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for the rest of his life. As the mullah implies, we need to help people to increase their critical thinking skills, rather than passively accept what others tell them via the Internet. Start now. James

2 1

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 19:52, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > C'punks, > > On Mon, 30 Dec 1996, Ross Wright wrote: > > > Be that as it may, it is still no call for threats of gunplay! > > That is NOT funny. I take such things very seriously. > > So let me see if I've got this right. Threatening to slap > someone is okay, I said "he deserves a slapping". I never volunteered to carry that out. And, furthermore, I meant a verbal slapping, something akin to what is already happening with the good Doctor's attacks. Sorry about the metaphor. God damn, must I overstate the obvious? What pissed me off is: After I received this letter I sent several olive branches. No reply. No discussion. Just leave it with his weapon drawn? On my open and empty hand!? That's not me. > but threatening to defend one's self from such an > attack is not okay? Interesting. I guess the old saying still > applies, "the essence of humor is WHOSE ox is being gored." > > > S a n d y =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

RE: Crypto reg clarification from Commerce Department
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

These make more sense with the following modifications to the clarification: (c) Definition of U.S. person. For purposes of this section, the term U.S. person includes: (1) Any retard who is a citizen of the United States, a permanent resident alien from Planet X, or a protected person formerly-known-as-criminal as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3); (2) Any juridical organization under surveillance by the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, including foreign branches; and (3) Any Borgs in the United States. .. Blanc

2 1

Have You Read the Book?
by rvrcp＠ocsnet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The book is called "How to MAKE AMERICA STRONG & WEALTHY ONE PERSON AT A TIME" There is over THREE MILLION copies in print. AND it is Free. The book contains information on how you can become DEBT-FREE in a very short time (on the money that you are making today), and how to easily make more money (thus becoming DEBT-FREE faster) working in your spare time, if you choose to do so. Get your free copy today, so when someone asks you, "Have you read the Book?", you can say, "I was going to ask you the same question!" This book will affect your life whether you read it or not. For more information, call 1-608-375-3130 ext 156900 for a recorded message. ---OR--- E-mail me your Postal Address at rvrcp(a)ocsnet.net. Call or write today. There is no obligation. But I am betting that you will see the great opportunities that this book contains. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you wish to be removed from this and all future mailing list, simply send me a message requesting removal. Thank you very much for a little of your valuable time. Ray 8->>

1 0

premail.
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A scenario: 1) The spooks put a bug (named Eve) on the link between kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu and the Internet. Whenever kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu sents out the pubring.pgp Eve intercepts it and replaces it with a file of the spooks' choosing. This file will selectively replace the public pgp keys of some of the remailers (say exon) in pubring.pgp with keys to which the spooks know the private key. 2) A similar bug is put on the link between the exon remailer and the internet. All email to exon is intercepted, and if found to be encrypted with the spooks' PGP key, it is decrypted, saved, re-encrypted with exon's real PGP key and sent on. It is only a scenario. I am still using premail to send this.

3 2

RE: Just another government fuckover: New crypto regulations
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto Why is it that governments always seem to be so self-congratulatory about allowing the citizens to be 'free' to do those things that the government 'allows' them to do? ..................................................... Not to start a thread specifically on government bashing, but Toto' statement is so on-target about the kind of attitude which emanates from what regulators say and do. It is their underlying assumption that only they have the moral discernment to determine the parameters of propriety; which makes them think that no 'underling' has the right of self-determination. It can be seen in statements they make such as as: "there are no provisions in Super Legislation Bill 200A.666.b.32xy.450z for individual exemptions from voluntary contribution". (well, excuse Me! <g>) So this means that an individual can feel "free" to act only when these people feel magnanimously generous enough to allow it. No reference to Reason or Logic in the way things work in Reality, only that an action is inhibited or allowed "because this piece of paper says so". Therefore from their perspective and their re-definition of "person", Human Motivation derives its validity solely from their "provisions" for it. All other determining factors are Prohibited by Law. How can you argue with that? .. Blanc >

1 0

If He Doesn't Like Me
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 21:32, Timothy C. May wrote: > > Indeed, I added "Ross Wright" to my Eudora filter file after his > "slap you around" message several days ago, so I was mercifully > spared from reading > > > As to why he got *plonked*, this is the price people pay for writing > such things as "maybe we need to slap him around." I have more than > 20 in my > > Oh, and posting private mail is not considered acceptable behavior. > What's next? If Timmy doesn't like what I write will I be kicked off like the Doctor? Wow! From Timmy's trash bin to Kook of the Month FAME!!!!! What more could I ask for? Fuck You, Too, Timmy! But I refuse to censor my own input, so I'll still have to see your fucking stuff. ShitHead. Hostile Agent! How come it took over a year to get this far? Ross (Proud to be in Timmy's Filter File) Wright =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

8 11

[[[ NEW ! Computer Based Business. ]]]
by 93865＠net.122 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DO NOT PRESS REPLY. Send all inquiries, and remove request to http://business.atcon.com/parker/PSM/Tony/tonypsm.htm

2 1

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 22:24, Sandy Sandfort wrote: > And Tim never threatened Ross. He merely posited an "if, than" > response to a hypothetical assault. If Ross does no slapping, Tim > won't shoot him. QED. No reason to get bent out of shape. Thanks. You are correct. I'm done with this thread. Tim *Plonked* me, not shot me. And now back to you, Dr. V.... Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

RE: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Ross Wright Yes, part of that "higher standard" is to keep your fucking mouth shut about that piece in your sholder holster. Those that brag that they are packing and won't hesitate to use it are usually those that freeze under fire or snap at the workplace. ............................................................. Discussing self-defense equipment to carry... Student: "How about earplugs?" Instructor: "We've thought about that as an intimidation tool. Some guy is hassling you on the street and you start putting your ear plugs in. The guy says, 'What are you doing?' You say, 'It looks like I'm going to be doing some shooting here pretty soon and I don't want to hurt my ears.'" -Greg Hamilton- Self Defense Instructor Nov. 19, 1995 In cyberspace, elimination is accomplished with "delete" keys and "kill files", right? (L.Detweiler used to complain about how many cyberdeaths he had experienced.) Outta sight, outta mind... .. Blanc

1 0

Re: "Structuring" of Communications a Felony?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:35 PM 12/29/96 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>I predict that we will see within two years a law making it illegal to >>"structure communications" with the intent to avoid traceability, >>accountability, etc. >> >>This would be along the lines of the laws making it illegal to "structure" >>financial transactions with the (apparent) intent to avoid or evade certain >>laws about reporting of income, reporting of transactions, etc. >> >>How long before the U.S. Code declares "attempting to obscure or hide the >>origin of a communication" to be a felony? That would rule out orninary >>mail without return adresses, but I think there are ample signs we're >>already moving toward this situation (packages that could be bombs >>putatively require ID, talk of the Postal Service handling the citizen-unit >>authentication/signature system, etc.). >>--Tim May > >Tim, I think that this is highly unlikely. The SC has ruled repeatedly >that anonymous speech is a foundation of American politics (e.g., the >Federalist Papers). >-- Steve When Senator Leahy's first crypto bill was proposed early this year, at first glance it appeared to help our cause. Many people around here at least gave it lukewarm support. However, it contained a section making (quote approximate) "use of encryption to thwart an investigation" a crime. I pointed out, quite loudly, that any encrypting anonymous remailer could be considered practically automatically guilty of this. In fact, the feds could simply start a sham "investigation," perhaps assisted by a phony message sent by a confederate through the remailer, and then declare that their investigation had been "thwarted." Whether such an interpretation would fly was, obviously, a question, but by the time the SC had issued its ruling the remailer's hardware would have been siezed collecting dust in some Fed warehouse for 2-3 years. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: LAW_dno
by Marshall Clow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the 12-29-96. Computerworld: >>>> Karen Epper, an analyst at Forrester Research, Inc. in Cambridge, Mass., said electronic commerce companies should do more legal research than that. "Joe Programmer could create a new currency system," Epper said. "But if it's not supported by regulators, what do you have?" <<<< And there you have it. If it's not regulated by the government, it's no good. P.S This was not an isolated quote, this was the central point of the article. -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> Warning: Objects in calendar are closer than they appear.

3 2

Hardening lists against spam attacks
by Bill Frantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Christmas attack against this list shows the need to develop lists which are resistant to attacks. If cyberspace is to become the town square of the next century, we need to be able to discourage brown shirts attacks on political gatherings. If lists are to be a major part of the political life of the community, then they must be resistant to attacks from knowledgeable, well financed attackers, not just the shits who were the most recent perps. There are several principles which should be observed: (1) Since attacks are based on sending to the list, receiving the list should remain substantially unchanged. (2) Spam attacks should be throttled at the source, so they do not act as a denial of service attack on the list server. Here is a sketch of a protocol which attempts to achieve these goals: (1) All messages sent to the list must be encrypted with the list's public key. This requirement is primarily to protect the posting token (see below). However, it alone will probably reduce the problem. Certainly it will eliminate the effectiveness of the "subscribe the list to some other list" attacks. (2) In order to post to the list, the poster must have a valid posting token. These tokens are available, in limited number, anonymously. Tokens remain valid unless canceled for abuse. However, if too many posts are received with a given token, TCP performance on sockets using that token may become arbitrarily slow (or the circuit may be dropped). (3) In order to limit the number of posting tokens, the list server will only issue a few per day. The lucky few who get them, everyone who asks under normal circumstances, may be determined by an algorithm designed to limit token collection by future attackers. (This area is where this proposal needs work!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Client in California, POP3 | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | in Pittsburgh, Packets in | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | Pakistan. - me | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

16 26

Re: premail.
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > > A scenario: > > 1) The spooks put a bug (named Eve) on the link between > kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu and the Internet. > > Whenever kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu sents out the pubring.pgp Eve intercepts > it and replaces it with a file of the spooks' choosing. This file will > selectively replace the public pgp keys of some of the remailers (say exon) > in pubring.pgp with keys to which the spooks know the private key. > > 2) A similar bug is put on the link between the exon remailer and the > internet. All email to exon is intercepted, and if found to be encrypted > with the spooks' PGP key, it is decrypted, saved, re-encrypted with exon's > real PGP key and sent on. > > It is only a scenario. I am still using premail to send this. > A good scenario. A truly paranoid premail users should verify who signed the remailer keys. If you trust the signators and they signed the keys, you are "safe". Just do pgp -kvv some(a)remailer.com and see what comes up. Maybe remailer operators should asks someone reputable to sign their remailers' keys so that the users can easily verify the signatures. - Igor.

4 4

Anonymous Post Control
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's hard to filter anonymous posters. I want to see what a few of them have to say so I can't filter on the remailers. If anonymous posters PGP sign their posts, it is still hard to filter using a lame filter software such as that which comes to Eudora. It would be nice if toad.com would verify signatures and insert a header into the messages with the PGP User Id of every poster. Then it would be very easy for many people to filter the messages using widely available off-the-shelf mail software. (I volunteer to adapt majordomo for this task if it seems like a good idea.) Peter Hendrickson ph(a)netcom.com

4 3

Re: what is a law if it cant be enforced?
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As long as it can be selectivley enforced, that's all they need. Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: cypherpunks cc: From: mrwilhe @ odin.cmp.ilstu.edu @ smtp Date: 12/30/96 07:43:01 PM Subject: what is a law if it cant be enforced? can our gov possibly enforce this crypto law? --esp over the net? I think what happend is the dod released the net (arpanet/Internet) to the people without looking at the implications that could arise. The people now control the net and not the gov--and they don't like it! anyway our government is ruled by the people for the people--so we should not have any kind of special laws--ones that only apply to the net and not the rest of the world, after all we have a thing called free speech! fsh

1 0

Professor Asks for Constitutional Review of New Encryption Regs
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Thanks to all the local c'punks for your support of this court case! If we do end up asking for a temporary restraining order, there'll probably be another hearing soon. I'll give you as much notice as I have. --gnu] PROFESSOR ASKS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF NEW ENCRYPTION REGS "Shell Game" Attempts to Continue Unconstitutional Rules December 30, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Attorney +1 301 375 8856, ssteele(a)eff.org John Gilmore, Founding Board Member +1 415 221 6524, gnu(a)toad.com Cindy Cohn, McGlashan & Sarrail +1 415 341 2585, cindy(a)mcglashan.com San Francisco - Laywers for Professor Dan Bernstein today asked the Government to delay enforcement of new encryption restrictions until they can be reviewed by a court for Constitutionality. The new regulations contain the same features struck down earlier this month by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel. "The government apparently decided to ignore Judge Patel's findings.", said Cindy Cohn, lead attorney in the case. "Instead of listening to Judge Patel's analysis and attempting to fix the regulations, they simply issued new ones with the same problems. We are giving them a a chance to fix this before we bring the issue up in court." President Clinton ordered on November 15 that the regulations be moved from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Judge Patel's decision of December 6 (released December 16th) struck down the State Department regulations as a "paradigm of standardless discretion" that required Americans to get licenses from the government to publish information and software about encryption. Over Christmas, the Clinton Administration published its new Commerce Department regulations, containing all the same problems, and put them into immediate effect today. The new regulations once again put Professor Bernstein at risk of prosecution for teaching a class on encryption and publishing his class materials on the Internet. His class begins on January 13 at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Professor Bernstein's letter of today proposes that the Government agree to delay enforcement of the new regulations while Judge Patel reviews them for Constitutionality. Failing that, Professor Bernstein will ask the court for a temporary restraining order to block their enforcement. "The government is forcing us to go back to Judge Patel again to have the new regulations declared facially unconstitutional." said Ms. Cohn. "This time we believe that a nationwide injunction against their enforcement is merited." "The new encryption rules are a pointless shell game," said John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which backed the suit. "Industry and Congress had asked that the draconian State Department regulations be eliminated in favor of existing, reasonable, Commerce Department regulations. Judge Patel invalidated the State Department regulations because they were draconian. Rather than address the concerns of either, President Clinton moved the draconian regulations into the Commerce Department -- and made them tougher in the process. It's his political decision whether to ignore and anger industry leaders, but he can't ignore a federal district court judge." Civil libertarians have long argued that encryption should be widely deployed on the Internet and throughout society to protect privacy, prove the authenticity of transactions, and improve computer security. Industry has argued that the restrictions hobble them in building secure products, both for U.S. and worldwide use, risking America's current dominant position in computer and communications technology. Government officials in the FBI and NSA argue that the technology is too dangerous to permit citizens to use it, because it provides privacy to criminals as well as ordinary citizens. Background on the case The plaintiff in the case, Daniel J. Bernstein, Research Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, developed an "encryption algorithm" (a recipe or set of instructions) that he wanted to publish in printed journals as well as on the Internet. Bernstein sued the government, claiming that the government's requirements that he register as an arms dealer and seek government permission before publication was a violation of his First Amendment right of free speech. This was required by the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The new regulations have the same effect, using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Export Administration Regulations, and a "state of national emergency" that President Clinton declared in 1994 and has re-declared annually. In the first phase of this litigation, the government argued that since Bernstein's ideas were expressed, in part, in computer language (source code), they were not protected by the First Amendment. On April 15, 1996, Judge Patel rejected that argument and held for the first time that computer source code is protected speech for purposes of the First Amendment. On December 6, Judge Patel ruled that the Arms Export Control Act is a prior restraint on speech, because it requires Bernstein to apply for and obtain from the government a license to publish his ideas. Using the Pentagon Papers case as precedent, she ruled that the government's "interest of national security alone does not justify a prior restraint." Judge Patel also held that the government's required licensing procedure fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards. When the Government acts legally to suppress protected speech, it must reduce the chance of illegal censorship by the bureacrats involved -- in this case, the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls (ODTC). Her decision states, "Because the ITAR licensing scheme fails to provide for a time limit on the licensing decision, for prompt judicial review and for a duty on the part of the ODTC to go to court and defend a denial of a license, the ITAR licensing scheme as applied to Category XIII(b) acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." She also ruled that the export controls restrict speech based on the content of the speech, not for any other reason. "Category XIII(b) is directed very specifically at applied scientific research and speech on the topic of encryption." The new regulations continue to insist that the Government is regulating the speech because of its function, not its content. The judge also found that the ITAR is vague, because it does not adequately define how information that is available to the public "through fundamental research in science and engineering" is exempt from the export restrictions. "This subsection ... does not give people ... a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited." Judge Patel also adopted a narrower definition of the term "defense article" in order to save it from unconstitutional vagueness. ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS Lead counsel on the case is Cindy Cohn of the San Mateo law firm of McGlashan & Sarrail, who is offering her services pro bono. Major additional pro bono legal assistance is being provided by Lee Tien of Berkeley; M. Edward Ross of the San Francisco law firm of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss; James Wheaton and Elizabeth Pritzker of the First Amendment Project in Oakland; and Robert Corn-Revere, Julia Kogan, and Jeremy Miller of the Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information. EFF is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and helped collect members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is available from EFF's online archives at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ The full text of today's letter from Professor Bernstein to the Government, and proposed stipulation, are at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/ Bernstein_case/Legal/961230.letter http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/ Bernstein_case/Legal/961230_proposed.stipulation The new Commerce Department Export Administration Regulations are available at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/961230_commerce.regs

1 0

Constitutionality of new regs.
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One issue which I haven't seen anybody address is the provision to make export licenses easier to obtain for those companies which show a credible business plan that supports GAK. 1) Isn't this showing favouritism in an administrative decision to people who support the government's political agenda. 2) If the export of a certain encryption `item' is inimical to `National Security', isn't the harm to the `National Security' the same regardless of whether the exporter plans to produce GAK products in the future or not? Based on these two points shouldn't this aspect of the regulations considered as being `arbitrary' and hence unconstitutional. A further thought. If you obtain an export license by showing the government a business plan that supports GAK, but then do not follow your business plan, how will the goverment `get' you?

2 1