December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Censorware battle heats up; CyberSitter blacklist now public
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

X-POP3-Rcpt: declan(a)relay.pathfinder.com X-Sender: declan(a)mail.pathfinder.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 18:43:35 -0400 To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: FC: Censorware battle heats up; CyberSitter blacklist now public Sender: owner-fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Reply-To: declan(a)well.com X-FC-URL: Fight-Censorship is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ You probably know about Brian Milburn. The irascible and foul-mouthed president of Solid Oak Software, which sells CyberSitter censorware, Milburn is best known for threatening journalists with criminal prosecutions, blocking the web sites of his critics, and calling writers a "trickle of piss." He's so obnoxious that even his fellow censorware vendors distance themselves from him. One of my articles about his exploits is at: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,453,00.html Now he's on the warpath again. His latest target: one Bennett Haselton, a college student and outspoken critic of CyberSitter's blocking policies. (Milburn blocks the National Organization for Women and New York's echo.com, among other university sites and Internet providers.) Haseleton earlier this week posted a short DOS program that decrypts CyberSitter's secret blacklist. Milburn was enraged. He accused Hasleton of various crimes and today demanded that Haselton stop *linking* to CyberSitter's pages. Read on for more... -Declan ********* >Return-path: <bennett(a)www.media3.net> >Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 09:59:10 -0700 >From: Brian Milburn <bmilburn(a)solidoak.com> >Subject: Demand letter >X-Sender: Brian Milburn >To: bennett(a)peacefire.org >Organization: Solid Oak Software, Inc. > >The following is a copy of a certified letter mailed to you on April 24, 1997. > >------------------------------ > >Bennett Haselton >Vanderbuilt University >Box 1161, Station B >Nashville, TN 37235 > >Re: www.peacefire.org > > >Dear Mr. Haselton: > >Please let this letter serve as notice of the following: > >1. You have posted a program on your web site called "CYBERsitter filter file >codebreaker". This program illegally modifies and decodes data and source >code >protected by U.S. and International intellectual property laws. > >This program performs this action without permission of the copyright owner. We demand >that this program be removed immediately. > >2. You have placed links on your web site to various locations on servers owned and >operated by Solid Oak Software, Inc., a private corporation. These include, but are >not limited to, HTTP links, FTP links, and e-mail links and private e-mail addresses. > >You have done this without permission of Solid Oak Software, Inc. Further use of >these links to our private facilities will be viewed as trespassing and intentional >harassment. We demand that these links be removed immediately. > >Your failure to comply with these demands immediately upon receipt of this letter will >be met with appropriate action. > > >Sincerely, >Brian Milburn, President >Solid Oak Software, Inc. > > > >____________________________________________ > >Brian Milburn >Solid Oak Software,Inc. - Santa Barbara, CA >bmilburn(a)solidoak.com - CIS: 74774,551 >http://www.solidoak.com - CIS: "GO SOLIDOAK" > *********** http://www.wired.com/news/politics/story/3355.html Teen Offers Way to Crack Blocking Software by Rebecca Vesely 3:03pm 23.Apr.97.PDT A Tennessee college student has posted a software program on the Web that can be used to decrypt a list of sites blocked by the prominent blocking software Cybersitter. The company that makes the program is furious, and an attorney versed in Net law says the student could face legal action. Bennett Haselton, co-founder of the teen Web site Peacefire, on Monday posted a program that he wrote specifically to crack the "filter file" that comes with Cybersitter. The 18-year-old junior at Vanderbilt University says it took him two days to write the software. The filter file is frequently updated by Solid Oak Software, the company that owns Cybersitter, but was taken offline Tuesday by the company. "He is violating every intellectual property law ever written," said Solid Oak president Brian Milburn. "It costs us tens of thousands of dollars to maintain that list. It's none of his business what is on that list or what we do with it." Milburn would not say whether the company planned to take legal action, but did say that Solid Oak "does not condone any kind of crime." A recent list of sites blocked by Cybersitter - pulled before the company took the filter file offline - was posted anonymously to Declan McCullagh's fight-censorship email discussion list Monday. The decrypted file shows that while most of the sites blocked by Cybersitter are pornographic in nature, a number are not. Among the sites blocked by Cybersitter on Monday were Cyborganic Gardens; the National Organization for Women; the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation; several regional ISPs; Peacefire; the Ethical Spectacle, which has criticized Solid Oak's blocking practices; and the chocolatier Godiva. "I think they are misrepresenting their product," Haselton said. "It's not just the fact that they are blocking Peacefire, it's that they are violating truth-in-advertising practices." Solid Oak says it blocks sites that focus on "topics such as adult or sexual issues, illegal activities, bigotry, racism, drugs, or pornography...." This is not Haselton's first run-in with Solid Oak. In December, he posted a list of Web sites blocked by Cybersitter, which at the time included The Well and Mother Jones magazine. Haselton maintained that he got the partial list by surfing the Web with Cybersitter installed on his computer. Solid Oak threatened to sue, saying that Haselton had cracked into their computers to get the list, and also threatened to block Peacefire's ISP, Media3. The company never acted on the threats. But Haselton could now face prosecution for violating copyright laws. He maintains that he skirted the law because he did not post the list of blocked sites, just information on how to access the list. He also noted that he accessed the Cybersitter list using an old version of the software that does not carry a copyright warning. However, one lawyer said she wasn't sure Haselton's reasoning will hold up if the case goes to court. "[Solid Oak] went to the trouble of compiling the list. From a competitive standpoint, someone else could use Haselton's software to get the list and start their own blocking software company," said Shari Steele, staff counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "There is an ownership interest here." Steele said that although someone who used the list for competitive purposes would be more likely to face legal ramifications than Haselton, it is not out of the realm of possibility that a court would side with Solid Oak. ------------------------- Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/

1 0

Cato forum on liquor advertising and electronic media
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 16:32:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Cato forum on liquor advertising and electronic media It was about a year ago when I wrote that just about every Federal agency was scheming to regulate the Net. I take no pleasure in saying I was right: we've seen agencies from the FDA to the FTC to the PTO try to grab a piece of cyberspace. Indeed, last Friday at an Internet Caucus briefing, FTC Commissioner Christine Varney said new regulations and laws were necessary; she predicted FTC regulations would be forthcoming later this year. The Center for Media Education is trying to accelerate this process. In a fearmongering report earlier this year, the group demanded that a slew of government agencies -- the FCC, FDA, FTC, CDC, NCI, and the WHO -- take "urgent agction" to "protect" America's children from tobacco and liquor advertising online. Sound familiar? It should. Net-nemesis Sen. Exon and conservative activists like Bruce Taylor and Donna Rice-Hughes trotted out the same lines two years ago when arguing for the Communications Decency Act. The Cato Institute is holding a forum next month on just this issue. Attached is the announcement and an excerpt from the CME report. -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 10:44:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Robin Hulsey <rhulsey(a)cato.org> The Cato Institute invites you to a Policy Forum Liquor Advertising and the Electronic Media featuring Fred Meister Distilled Spirits Council of the United States Dan Troy Wiley, Rein & Fielding Sam Kazman Competitive Enterprise Institute Heather Mizeur Rep. Joseph Kennedy Tom Howarth * Mothers Against Drunk Driving For years makers of "hard" liquor refrained from advertising their products over radio and television, but last year some companies began doing so. Some companies have also established an advertising presence on the Internet. Is this free speech protected by the First Amendment, or is it a new health threat that should be subject to regulation? Tuesday, May 6, 1997 4:00 - 5:30 p.m. (Reception to follow) Cato Institute 1000 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20001 To register, news media please call Robin Hulsey at (202) 789-5293 or E-mail to rhulsey(a)cato.org. * invited **************** Excerpt from: Center for Media Education Report http://tap.epn.org/cme/execsum.html Alcohol and Tobacco on the Web: New Threats to Youth Executive Summary The combination of these new Web marketing technologies gives marketers of alcohol and tobacco an arsenal of powerful new weapons. Urgent action is needed to ensure that effective safeguards are put in place to protect young people from the harmful effects of online marketing of alcohol and tobacco. Because of the unique nature of the interactive media, many of these new forms of advertising, of particular appeal to youth, appear to be inherently unfair and deceptive. Some of these practices may already be violating the law. The Cigarette Act, which has since 1971 kept advertising of cigarettes off radio and television, applies to "any medium of electronic communication subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission" and thus would be applicable to the Internet as well. The alcohol industries have not been subjected to the same kinds of legal barriers to advertising as tobacco. However, all advertising, including online advertising, is subject to the current laws against deceptive, unfair, or other illegal practices. [...] Among the recommendations for action, the Center for Media Education calls for the following steps to combat the online promotion of alcohol and tobacco products to young people: 1. Congress should conduct hearings on the online marketing of alcohol and tobacco to the nation's children. 2. The Federal Trade Commission should use its authority over unfair and deceptive advertising to immediately launch an investigation into these practices. The FTC should also expand its current inquiry on online privacy to include alcohol and tobacco marketing data-collection practices. 3. The Food and Drug Administration should carefully monitor online tobacco promotion developments and develop any additional safeguards needed to protect youth that are not already covered by the Cigarette Act. 4. Federal agencies responsible for the public health, including the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control, should examine the implications for public health of online marketing of alcohol and tobacco products. 5. The national public health community, including professional medical organizations, should launch initiatives to educate their members and the public about this issue. 6. The international health community, including the World Health Organization, should launch similar inquiries. Special attention should be given to the negative consequences of new media marketing in the developing world. The U.S. should play a leadership role in the international arena to create effective global safeguards. 7. Parents and educators should help educate our nation's youth about these new dangers. They should establish policies in the schools to limit exposure of underage youth to these sites. 8. Alcohol industries should abide by their own self-regulatory codes and stop targeting youth in all media, including online. 9. Cigarette companies should refrain from moving onto the Internet to market and promote their products. If companies fail to comply with the Cigarette Act, appropriate legal action should be taken. ###

3 3

PGPSteps
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-------------< COMMENTS BY Harka >-------------- Since there was a quite surprising interest, when I announced the draft-version of "PGPSteps", I'll post it this time straight to the list. If somebody would like to give it a WWW-home, go for it (please let me know the URL). Harka ----------< END OF COMMENTS BY Harka >---------- Here is "PGPSteps", a brief installation guide for PGP 2.6.2/2.6.3i for DOS/Windows. I started writing it, cause it seemed, that a lot of people were getting turned off by the sheer amount of homepages, front-ends, 150-pages+ FAQ's etc.. All of these things are great, but were usually only mastered by the most of the determined. The majority of potential users though didn't want to go through all that trouble. Hence "PGPSteps", an attempt to provide an easy starting ground, that let's newbies know, where to get PGP, how to install it, answers the most important questions and gives pointers to other resources. All that in a short and easily understandable form, that even not-so-technical people might be able to deal with. I hope, I have failed not too miserably... Comments to "PGPSteps" are welcome. Harka PGPSTEPS.ASC

1 0

Re: Cato forum on liquor
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -=> Quoting In:declan@well.com to Harka <=- In> The Center for Media Education is trying to accelerate this process. In> In a fearmongering report earlier this year, the group demanded that a In> slew of government agencies -- the FCC, FDA, FTC, CDC, NCI, and the WHO In> -- take "urgent agction" to "protect" America's children from tobacco In> and liquor advertising online. Shesh, such garbage one can only read with a whisky and a cigarette... The only way to "enforce" that would be censorship from ISP-side, because any reasonable tobacco/liquor company would/will just set up a server outside the US. Ciao Harka -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBM1/8/zltEBIEF0MBAQFcngf/TbFmBb7/Dval5nF3q2uOF9mcedvOrV/H XGXt1Dunh9U+jF/P7qskTKgvIxOic106rmXzG+OBE4FAF8Iec8wr+8AP1drkNxQw RV3oyH/5xm1s7lNoaCDdMumcanO6254wZhF1m5pc8KlY8LWCOmU5vhZlvlVM076E bvVGdy+GpSL7wG7NdwspuPIWFN/O0TEO5y4snbdRqrDNWsfciCBO/WM5I6ojiQ+j zzF4tGwZECfHFmuoNWOlBEN/PZyFi4EJldyDY0U7CIYl6hxL0nMemg4iB5zK3z6E BW1PbScYBeCmR+fk/XGOHNxmBA1ShpqIue7WWaIeDhC3yrxfT/nYvQ== =t4Ve -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

Re: Downloading Software + viruses (HOAX)
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This guy is scaring me. It's not real, right? On 24 Apr 97 at 18:28, Scott Shrader wrote: > I know You can get a virus this way. Do you want me to send you one > this way?!?! That sound's like a threat. I am going to have to report you to your ISP. Sorry. Abuse or Root: Your user is threating to send me a virus through e-mail. Can you stop him, please? See headers at bottom of message. Thanks. > > Yours, > Scott > > > At 04:03 PM 4/23/97 -0700, you wrote: > >Scott, > > > >Get off it. You can't get a virus from reading an e-mail file. > >We've been all over this, up and down. You must open a file and > >run it to get a virus. Now you *may* be able to get a virus from > >reading 'web based' e-mal like hot mail, but using a regular e-mail > >software it WILL NOT happen. No way, no how, so put up a copy of > >this "microsoft letter" on your web site you claim to have and post > >some verifiable information or just go away and shut up. > > > > > > > >On 23 Apr 97 at 17:58, Scott Shrader wrote: > > > >> The another reason I know this can happen is I got a letter from > >> Microsoft and on C-net(on the TV), talking about a virus that > >> once you opened it. Could curruped you e-mail program(only work > >> on internet Exsplore and microsoft e-mail programs). > >> > >> Yours, > >> Scott Shrader > >> > >> >On Sun, 20 Apr 1997, Scott Shrader wrote: > >> > > >> >> Sorry to burst your bubble, but I know for a fact that you can > >> >> get a virus from a e-mail. I've heard from other people how > >> >> have gotten viruses this. I even heard of how to do it. You > >> >> can't get the virus, unless your open it and/or get it from > >> >> your e-mail server. > >> >> > >> >> Yours, > >> >> Scott Shrader > >> >> > > > > > > > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > _/ Scott Shrader _/ > _/ shrader(a)scsn.net _/ > _/ http://www.scsn.net/users/shrader/ _/ > _/ or _/ > _/ http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/2352/ _/ > _/ Columbia, SC _/ > _/ 29223 _/ > _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ > > Received: from rosie.scsn.net (scsn.net [206.25.246.12]) by

2 1

Re: Censorware battle heats up; CyberSitter blacklist now public
by geeman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/story/3355.html > >Teen Offers Way to Crack Blocking Software >by Rebecca Vesely > >3:03pm 23.Apr.97.PDT A Tennessee college student has posted a software >program on the Web that can be used to decrypt a list of sites blocked >by the prominent blocking software Cybersitter. The company that makes >the program is furious, and an attorney versed in Net law says the >student could face legal action. > >Bennett Haselton, co-founder of the teen Web site Peacefire, on Monday >posted a program that he wrote specifically to crack the "filter file" >that comes with Cybersitter. The 18-year-old junior at Vanderbilt >University says it took him two days to write the software. The filter >file is frequently updated by Solid Oak Software, the company that >owns Cybersitter, but was taken offline Tuesday by the company. > >"He is violating every intellectual property law ever written," said >Solid Oak president Brian Milburn. "It costs us tens of thousands of >dollars to maintain that list. It's none of his business what is on >that list or what we do with it." /\/\/\/\/ And this genius Milburn protects it with some bullshit that can be cracked in 2 days!?!?! He deserves everything he gets and more. Should be a lesson. I look forward to more fireworks! > >------------------------- >Time Inc. >The Netly News Network >Washington Correspondent >http://netlynews.com/ > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send >"subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. >More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/ > > > >

1 0

Re: [CRYPTO] e$
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now is the time for all good little boys to cum in Tim May's big mouth. \|/ @ @ -oOO-(_)-OOo- Tim May

2 1

Re: Cato forum on liquor advertising and electronic media
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bill Frantz wrote: >What is highly amusing is the mounting evidence that alcoholic beverages in >moderation are good for your health. Of course, if you are one of the >small percent of the population who can't be moderate, then you should not >use alcoholic beverages. But many people have bad reactions to various >foods. That's no reason to forbid them or their advertising. ............................................... Well, of course I was taking aim not specifically against the mentioned vices, but to the attitude of people who wish to protect children from themselves in their forays into "dangerous" advertising territory. That is, to the attitude of calling for restriction and the setting of boundaries, rather than of providing some explanations on life and what can happen and how a person can deal with consequences. But that would take a lot of work and wisdom that they apparently don't feel they can offer. I have envisioned a time in the distant future, perhaps in a distant galaxy, where static data is not a source of fear and children grow with an open attitude to information - to the fact that it is they themselves, who determine what shall be done, not bits of data. I have always read so many things since growing up, curiously poking into everything that was available (my Mother would have cringed), and never was automatically affected by it, but developed a total respect for a Universe of All Possible Things, even if I never intended to involve or indulge myself in trying out all that I encountered (in the library, bookstores, etc.) These people have this idea that because you look at a black hole you inevitably must fall into it. I guess it comes from their own lack of self confidence. Were they to have the aim of ascending from fear and doubt into the expansion of their worldly perspective and development of intelligent judgment about Reality, they wouldn't have to think of calling upon intermediaries to put limits on their activities (or that of their children) for them. One should look for intermediaries only when one is clearly helpless. It's incredible to think that there is no self-defense against fatuous advertising. -- end of rant -- .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Cato forum on liquor advertising and electronic media
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Greg Broiles wrote: >Indeed - I frequently find myself wondering who really won the cold war. The >"free world" seems to be adopting the totalitarian/surveillance-state tactics >and behaviors usually ascribed to the nations which "lost" the cold war; but >the "losers" seem to have a much better grasp of the importance of human >freedom than the "winners" do. ..................................................... I think it's because, having suffered through many years of totalitarian beneficence, they know first-hand what it really means to live that way: whereas our friends & neighbors over here can only imagine the good things and "benefits" that they envision for everyone, the ones who have lived through it know what it really looks like and how it really feels to be on the receiving end. It is unfortunate that our innocence can be a drawback to realizing the effects or consequences of blanket policies, those one-size-fits-all arrangements which are supposed to "help us" into becoming better persons against our will. Reading history apparently doesn't make an impact on some people, sometimes they just have to be there, to see first-hand what it means to experience their grand designs. That's why I really wish that these people would get what they wish for - that they could live, with all voluntary parties in full consent, the kind of restrictive setups they are always calling for. I guess Singapore is the closest thing to that at this time, where they appear to live pretty much a pre-determined existence and don't leave, although they are free to do so. Too bad it's a small island and can't fit many more similarly minded types. Maybe one day in the future all the control freaks and their submissive followers will gravitate to certain parts of the world and everyone else to others, and there will be peace & happiness throughout the planet. :-) .. Blanc

1 0

Re: Cato forum on liquor advertising and electronic media
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: >By the way, the conventional (if flaky) wisdom in the 1950s was that >cigarette smoking was good for one's health (a "digestive"). Had the FCC >and FDA had the powers then that they have now, cigarette ads would have >been _required_. ...................................................... Just as the govt is inclined to keep databases of our sins, would it be nice to also have a long account of their faults, for posterity. Something to display in arguments and debates, to present to a candid world (in the words of the Declaration of Independence) just cause for our grievances against it and convincing proof why it is not wise to blindly follow leaders, for yay - sometimes they err, and sometimes one gets the shaft. There are many books presenting detailed accounts of govt follies, but had I the time & inclination I would arrange them into a database table for ease in appreciation, with categories like: Policy/Law Purpose Date Instigated Actual Effects/Consequences Date Retracted Results Not that I would want to create a dark picture of govt, but only to create a dark picture of the logic of those who would give us no choice in these matters.

1 0

Latest info on new Microsoft Visual Tools
by VTDirector 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey developers, Don't miss out on the new capabilities of Microsoft's latest versions of the Visual Tools you depend on--including a brand new suite of tools called Visual Studio 97 development system. Microsoft has just introduced the following tools, each with new features and enhancements that can improve both your efficiency and integration with the Internet: * Microsoft Visual Basic programming system 5.0 -- Combine fast development and execution with the new Native Code compiler. Visual Basic is the most efficient tool for creating high-performance applications that integrate client/server technology with Internet technology. * Microsoft Visual C++ development system 5.0 -- This is the most powerful language for developing high-performance applications and components. Now, run everything faster, including existing code, with this version. * Microsoft Visual InterDev Web development system -- The newest member of the Visual Tools family, this integrated development tool for building Active Server Web applications increases Web developers' productivity and makes it easy to develop dynamic, database-driven Web sites. * Microsoft Visual J++ development software -- Create great 100% cross-platform Java code, or integrate it with your databases and existing applications. Put the powerful Java debugger and the fastest Java compiler to work for you. All this in a flexible, familiar IDE that is shared with Visual C++ and Visual InterDev. * Microsoft Visual FoxPro database management system 5.0 -- With improved performance, existing applications run up to 40% faster. This object-oriented development tool is the best way to build all types of database applications. But that's just the beginning -- Microsoft has even better news. If you use more than one Microsoft Visual Tool, you can get a value-priced suite of all five products for just about the price of two: Visual Studio 97. With it, you'll be prepared for any development challenge, from Windows-based solutions to Internet development to the most complex client/server applications.. Not yet sure? Then visit www.microsoft.com/visualtools/ for multimedia demos, white papers, and other fact-packed information. If you're ready to purchase, you can buy online at http://www.developstore.com/, or call (800) 621-7930 and ask for "Department V5 Tools" to order by phone or to find the name of a reseller in your area. --Tom Button Director, Developer Product Marketing

1 0

Crypto '97: Information and Registration Form
by Bruce Schneier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CRYPTO '97 General Information 17-21 August 1997 Santa Barbara, California, USA Crypto '97 is the 17th international conference on cryptology held at the University of California Santa Barbara. The academic program covers all aspects of cryptology; specific papers will be announced on 1 May. Formal proceedings, published by Springer-Verlag, will be provided to all attendees at the conference. Crypto '97 is sponsored by the International Association for Cryptologic Research (IACR), in cooperation with the IEEE Computer Society Technical Committee on Security and Privacy, and the Computer Science Department of the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). Program Chair is Burt Kaliski, Jr., and General Chair is Bruce Schneier. In addition to selected and invited papers, there will be a rump session on Tuesday evening for selected informal presentations. Facilities are available for attendees to demonstrate hardware, software, and other items of cryptologic interest. If you are interested, contact the General Chair by 12 June 1997. The social program will include hosted dinner receptions on Monday and Tuesday nights, and a beach barbecue on Wednesday evening. Breakfasts and lunches will be served at the university dining hall. Conference Facilities: The workshop will be held on the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara. The campus is located adjacent to the Santa Barbara airport and the Pacific Ocean; free shuttle bus service from the airport is available. Reasonably priced accommodations are available in the university dormitories for participants and their registered guests. Children under the age of 13 are not allowed to stay in the dormitories, so those bringing younger children will need to make separate arrangements in one of the nearby hotels (see Hotels, below). Parking on campus is available at no cost to participants, but a permit must be requested on arrival. Smoking inside campus buildings is prohibited. The food is good. Registration: The conference is open to all interested parties, but the number of attendees at the workshop is limited to 500; pre-registration is strongly advised. To register, fill out the accompanying registration form and return it to the address on the form along with payment in full before 12 July 1997. Those bringing a guest are also required to submit the guest registration form. Campus accommodations will be available on a first come, first served basis for attendees who register by 12 July 12 1997. Registrations received after 12 July 1997 may be accepted if space is available but cannot be guaranteed. The conference fee includes participation in the program and all social functions, as well as membership in the IACR and a subscription to the Journal of Cryptology. The room and board charges include dormitory lodging Sunday night through Wednesday night, and breakfast and lunch on Monday through Thursday. Technical sessions will run from Monday morning to Thursday noon, with a free half day on Tuesday afternoon. A limited number of stipends are available to students unable to obtain funding. Students are invited to apply if such assistance is needed. Requests for stipends should be received by the General Chair before 14 June 1997. Students registering for the conference need to provide verification of their student status with a letter from their Supervisor or Department Chair and a photocopy of their student ID card. Preference will be given to students whose papers are accepted and who will present the papers themselves Cancellations received, in writing, by the General Chair by 15 July 1997 will be considered for a refund in full minus $75 for a copy of the Proceedings and handling costs. No refunds will be made for cancellations received after 15 July 1997, but a copy of the conference Proceedings will be mailed to those registered but unable to attend. Travel Information: The campus is located approximately two miles from the Santa Barbara airport, which is served by several airlines including American, American West, Delta, United, and US Air. Complimentary shuttle bus service will be provided between the Santa Barbara airport and the campus on Sunday and Thursday afternoons. All major rental car agencies are represented in Santa Barbara. AMTRAK also has rail connections from both San Francisco and Los Angeles. Santa Barbara is approximately 100 miles (160 km) north of the Los Angeles airport and 350 miles (560 km) south of San Francisco. Hotels: For those who choose not to stay in the dormitories, the following is a partial list of hotels in the area. Those who choose to stay off campus are responsible for making their own reservations, and early reservations are advised since August is a popular season in Santa Barbara. Note that Goleta is closer to UCSB than Santa Barbara is to UCSB, but a car will probably be required to travel between any hotel and the campus. All prices are subject to change: prices should be confirmed by calling the hotels directly. However, mention Crypto '97 at UCSB when you are making your reservations, since at several of the hotels you will be eligible for the university rate, which can be a significant savings. We are not able to book block rooms in these hotels, so please make reservations as early as possible. The quality of the hotels ranges from rather expensive beach-front resorts to basic inexpensive accommodations. For further information, try contacting the Santa Barbara Convention and Visitors Center, +1 805 966 9222, or see http://www.iacr.org. South Coast Inn: 5620 Calle Real, Goleta, CA 93117. Single rate $89; double rate $94. Contact Ms. Murrill Forrester at +1 805 967 3200. Cathedral Oaks Lodge (formerly Turnpike Lodge): 4770 Calle Real, Santa Barbara, CA, 93110. Single rates $75 and up; double rates $85 and up. No university rates available. Prices include breakfast. Telephone +1 805 964 3511; fax +1 805 964 0075. Motel 6: 5897 Calle Real, Goleta, CA 93117. Single rate $36.99; double rate $42.99. Telephone +1 805 891 6161 or the national reservations number. The Sandman Inn: 3714 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93105. Rates start at $79. Telephone: +1 805 687 2468; fax +1 805 687 6581. Miramar Hotel (Beachfront): Three miles south of Santa Barbara on U.S. 101 at San Ysidro turnoff. No specific single or double rates. Rooms begin at $75. Telephone +1 805 969 2203; fax +1 805 969 3163. Pepper Tree Inn: 3850 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93105. Single rate $114; double rate $124. Telephone +1 805 687 5511; fax +1 805 682 2410. Encina Lodge: 2220 Bath Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93105. Single rate $120; double rate $124. Telephone +1 805 682 7277; fax +1 805 563 9319. Pacifica Suites: Located close to the campus (just down Ward Memorial Blvd./Highway 217), 5500 Hollister Avenue, Santa Barbara, CA 93111. Normal rates begin at $135 for a suite. Includes full cooked breakfast. Telephone +1 805 683 6722; fax +1 805 683 4121. Upham Hotel: This is a bed-and-breakfast in downtown Santa Barbara. 1404 De La Vina Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93101. Rates begin at $110. (You must mention that you are attending the Crypto conference.) Telephone +1 805 962 0058; fax +1 805 963 2825. The El Encanto Hotel: This renovated hotel is located in the foothills near downtown Santa Barbara. 1900 Lasuen Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93105. Rates begin at $140. Telephone +1 805 687 5000; fax +1 805 687 3903. To register, print and mail the following form: --------------------------------------------------------------------- CRYPTO '97 Registration Form Registration deadline: July 12, 1997 Last Name: ________________________________________________________ First Name: ____________________________________ Sex: M or F _______ Affiliation: _______________________________________________________ Mailing Address: ___________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Phone: ___________________________ Fax: ____________________________ Electronic Mail: ___________________________________________________ ___ Check here if you wish to have your name and address excluded from the list of delegates. Payment of the conference fee entitles you to membership in the International Association for Cryptologic Research for 1998 at no extra charge, including a subscription to the Journal of Cryptology, published by Springer-Verlag, at no extra charge. Do you wish to be an IACR member? ___ YES ___ NO ___ Check here if you with to have your name and address excluded from the IACR membership listing. Conference Registration Fee (check first line that applies): Paid by July 12 After July 12 ___ Full-Time Student $211 $291 ___ Attended Eurocrypt '97 $350 $430 ___ Regular Registration $422 $502 $ _________ ___ Guest Attendance (social program only) $60 Guest's Name________________________ $ _________ Room Sunday to Thursday (non-smoking) with breakfast and lunch Monday through Thursday ___ Single room $290 ___ Double room $230 Roommate's name: _____________________ $ _________ Extra nights at $70 single, $55 double, per person, per night ___ Saturday night $ _____ ___ Thursday night $ _____ $ _________ TOTAL ENCLOSED OR PAID BY CREDIT CARD: $ _________ Enclosed payments must be in U.S. funds: by check drawn on a U.S. bank, by U.S. money order, or by U.S. bank draft, payable to CRYPTO '97. Credit card payments are accepted by either mail or fax. Check one: __ VISA ___ MasterCard ___ American Express Name on card: ___________________________________________ Card number: ___________________________ Expires: ______ Cardholder's signature: _________________________________ Send forms and enclosed payments to: For more information: Bruce Schneier, Crypto '97 Email: crypto97(a)iacr.org Counterpane Systems WWW: http://www.iacr.org 101 E Minnehaha Parkway Phone: +1 612 823 1998 Minneapolis, MN 55419 USA Fax: +1 612 823 1590 ************************************************************************** * Bruce Schneier For information on APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY * Counterpane Systems 2nd EDITION (15% discount and errata), * schneier(a)counterpane.com Counterpane Systems's consulting services, * http://www.counterpane.com/ or the Blowfish algorithm, see my website. **************************************************************************

1 0

Save 50% on Office Pro 97 & 40% on NT 4.0 !!!
by gsmith＠ultragrafix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Special #1 - Save over 50% on Microsoft Office Professional 97 (FULL Version) These are brand new Full Versions that we are selling for $285.00 (USD) This product usually retails for $585.00 in popular stores such as Comp USA and Computer City. Please call us at (817) 557-4945 for more information. Microsoft Office 97 includes new versions of each of the component applications, including Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, the PowerPoint® presentation graphics program and Microsoft Access, as well as the new Microsoft Outlook. Common to these Office 97 applications is the integration of new Internet technologies. Please call us at (817) 557-4945 for product availability and to order by all major credit cards. Please stop by our web site at http://www.globaltech2000.com for more great deals on software! Shipping is $6.00 (USD)for U.S. orders Shipping is $20.00 (USD)for Canada, Great Britain, Australia Shipping is $24.00 (USD) for all other International orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Special #2 - 40% OFF Windows NT Workstation (Full Version) ! This product normally sells for over $300 but we are selling our remaining inventories for $175 Due to our limited supply, please call us at (817)557-4945 if you are interested in this product! Shipping is $6.00 (USD)for U.S. orders Shipping is $20.00 (USD)for Canada, Great Britain, Australia Shipping is $24.00 (USD) for all other International orders Please call us at (817) 557-4945 for product availability and to order by all major credit cards. PLEASE be sure to check out our web site at http://www.globaltech2000.com for other great software deals! ******************************************************************* Please Note - All remove requests will be honored and enforced by our postmaster. If you'd rather not receive offers for large discounts on software in the future (usually about 1 per month) simply send an email to remove(a)ultragrafix.com and you will automatically deleted from any future mailings. Thank You *******************************************************************

1 0

Save 50% on Office Pro 97 & 40% on NT 4.0 !!!
by gsmith＠ultragrafix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Special #1 - Save over 50% on Microsoft Office Professional 97 (FULL Version) These are brand new Full Versions that we are selling for $285.00 (USD) This product usually retails for $585.00 in popular stores such as Comp USA and Computer City. Please call us at (817) 557-4945 for more information. Microsoft Office 97 includes new versions of each of the component applications, including Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, the PowerPoint® presentation graphics program and Microsoft Access, as well as the new Microsoft Outlook. Common to these Office 97 applications is the integration of new Internet technologies. Please call us at (817) 557-4945 for product availability and to order by all major credit cards. Please stop by our web site at http://www.globaltech2000.com for more great deals on software! Shipping is $6.00 (USD)for U.S. orders Shipping is $20.00 (USD)for Canada, Great Britain, Australia Shipping is $24.00 (USD) for all other International orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Special #2 - 40% OFF Windows NT Workstation (Full Version) ! This product normally sells for over $300 but we are selling our remaining inventories for $175 Due to our limited supply, please call us at (817)557-4945 if you are interested in this product! Shipping is $6.00 (USD)for U.S. orders Shipping is $20.00 (USD)for Canada, Great Britain, Australia Shipping is $24.00 (USD) for all other International orders Please call us at (817) 557-4945 for product availability and to order by all major credit cards. PLEASE be sure to check out our web site at http://www.globaltech2000.com for other great software deals! ******************************************************************* Please Note - All remove requests will be honored and enforced by our postmaster. If you'd rather not receive offers for large discounts on software in the future (usually about 1 per month) simply send an email to remove(a)ultragrafix.com and you will automatically deleted from any future mailings. Thank You *******************************************************************

1 0

Fraud Without Frontiers
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FT reports on a new Deloitte & Touche report, "Fraud Without Frontiers" on the EU "fraud paradise." It sees 10 areas of concern: "Computer abuse, banking frauds, counterfeiting, investment fraud, confidence tricks, public sector fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, insurance fraud, smuggling and money laundering. The largest single threat comes from fraud through the Internet. The potential for abuse of computer systems is huge, particuarly since encryption technology is vulnerable to sophisticated computer users. The Internet is now being used to manipulate financial markets. Fraudsters are becoming more sophisticated. Inside dealers are making more use of offshore havens to avoid detection while criminal syndicates with knowlege of banking practice have cheated banks. 'Offshore havens', some inside the EU, remains a common feature of fraud. But with some EU economies closely linked to the offshore world, the incentive to push for reform in this area is limited" The report is available from D&T-UK for L95. (Hint, send) http://www.deloitte-touche-consulting.co.uk/main.html ----- D&T has a Web page, "Taking the Mystery Out of ..." which gives solace about encryption, passwords, firewalls, kerberos, and such: http://www.dttus.com/dttus/publish/mystery/mystery1.htm

1 0

Deloitte-Touche: Fraud and the Net
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Sender: oldbear(a)pop.tiac.net Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 19:06:41 -0400 To: Digital Commerce Society of Boston <dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu> From: The Old Bear <oldbear(a)arctos.com> Subject: Deloitte-Touche: Fraud and the Net Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: The Old Bear <oldbear(a)arctos.com> FRAUD AND THE NET A Deloitte & Touche report commissioned by the European Union says that cross-border fraud involving Internet abuse, banking and investment frauds, and smuggling is costing society $77 billion a year. The report suggests that perhaps the largest single threat comes from fraud through the Internet, because encryption technology remains vulnerable to sophisticated computer vandals. source: Financial Times April 24, 1997 Anyone have a pointer to the full report or a more detailed abstract? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from the dcsb list, send a letter to: Majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB(a)ai.mit.edu --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "...Wells Fargo's on-line banking sucks dead gerbils through a dirty garden hose." -- Eric Murray The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

2 1

Tim's Tag Bi-Line
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>--Tim May > >There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. ---------- In response to Tim's tag line and to BXA's claim (twinned by NSA, FBI, CIA and DoJ) of training Janus crypto-narcs to snare dual-use miscreants: http://guru.cosc.georgetown.edu/~denning/cosc511/ Information Warfare: Terrorism, Crime, and National Security Prof. Dorothy E. Denning This course will study the nature of information warfare, including computer crime and information terrorism, in the global information infrastructure as it relates to national security, defense policy, economic security, organizational security, and personal security. Students will gain an understanding of the threats and vulnerabilities, including military and economic espionage, denial of service, destruction and modification of data, distortion and fabrication of information, forgery, control and disruption of information flow, electronic bombs, and psyops and perception management. They will learn about attacks and countermeasures, including authentication, encryption, auditing, monitoring, and firewalls, and the limitations of those countermeasures. They will learn about cyberspace law enforcement and investigations, information warfare and the military, and intelligence in the information age. Information technology policy and ethics will be examined. ----- This is not to single out the duality of Professor Denning/Mr. Denning. There are several similar dual-use courses being taught at civ-mi schools as market-wise institutions-governments scramble for funds-taxes by promising results to job-needy scientists-engineers and students-citizens. Heed the dual-use market/cartel, be an infoartist/informer, an inside-lawyer/outlaw; practice selfless public archy, greedy secret anarchy. That's the ticket for wise guys-gals, go either way as the bi-wind blows and stills.

1 0

Re: Deloitte-Touche: Fraud and the Net
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan wrote: >I'd be happy to contribute towards the cost if someone else wants to take >up a collection and buy the report. (If it goes online, as I assume it >will, is this an example of a cypherpunkish "public good?") > >Or I can try to call up and get 'em to send me a copy as a journalist. ---------- Praps a local bloke can help us out: The source is given as the D&T office in London: http://www.deloitte-touche-consulting.co.uk/about-us.html Deloitte & Touche Consulting Group, Stonecutter Court, Stonecutter Street, London EC4A 4TR. Tel: 0171 303 3000 Sure, I'll buy it and pay for Fedex too; got my Amex and FX numbers ready. John ---------- Financial Times, April 24, 1997, p. 3. EU fraudsters 'revel in fiscal paradise' Report urges Brussels authorities to crack down on $77bn cross-border corruption By John Mason in Brussels International fraud in the European Union could be costing governments, companies and individuals up to $77bn a year, a report commissioned by the European Commission has concluded. Crimes such as Internet abuse, counterfeiting, banking and investment frauds and smuggling pose an increasing threat which can only be countered by further international action, said Deloitte & Touche, the accountancy firm. Harmonisation of laws and regulations, improved co-operation between states and a greater stress on fraud prevention are needed if EU economies are not to be undermined by international criminals, the report said. Mr Will Inglis, the Deliotte & Touche partner responsible for the report, said: "There is clear evidence that determined fraudsters deliberately and cynical]y manipulate and take advantage of the different regulatory and monitoring regimes across the EU to perpetrate their frauds. In particular, we see the fraudsters taking advantage of havens of secrecy and fiscal paradises. Fraudulent activity in the Union has the potential to seriously distort competition and harm the citizens of the EU who end up paying the cost." The report identified 10 areas of concern: computer abuse, banking frauds, counterfeiting, investment fraud, confidence tricks, public sector fraud, fraudulent bankruptcy, insurance fraud, smuggling and money laundering. The type of crime varies considerably between countries. In the UK, financial services fraud is a problem because of the size of the industry, France suffers particularly from counterfeiting of luxury goods, while in Greece the smuggling of antiquities is second only to the drugs trade in terms of crime. However, across the EU, the removal of restrictions following the creation of the single market and technological advances have opened up opportunities for fraudsters, the report said. Perhaps the largest single threat comes from fraud through the Internet, Mr Inglis said. The potential for abuse of computer systems is huge, particularly since encryption technology is vulnerable to sophisticated computer abusers. The Internet is now also being used to manipulate financial markets. In other areas, fraudsters are becoming more sophisticated. Insider dealers are making more use of offshore havens to avoid detection while criminal syndicates with knowledge of banking practice have cheated banks. Not that frauds all need to be sophisticated. Italian investigators discovered that Libyan dinars were being taken to Naples to be literally "laundered" with a solvent and re-printed as D-Marks. The incidence of cross-border frauds is increasing faster than those which take place only within one country, with organised crime playing a substantial role, the report said. Other perpetrators of fraud, although on a lesser scale, include senior company managers. The report points to lack of legal harmonisation: In some EU states it is not even an offence to bribe somebody in a different country. Action against fraud can also damage a member state's economy. The use of "offshore" havens, some inside the EU, remains a common feature of fraud. But with some EU economies closely linked to the offshore world, the incentive to push for reform in this area is limited. Fraud, especially crossborder fraud, tends also to be given low priority compared to other crimes. There is also less political will to tackle money laundering when this involves fraud rather than drugs. The report concludes there are four priority areas - increased legal harmonisation, improved co-operation between member states, a greater concentration on confiscating fraudsters' assets and developing awareness of fraud prevention. [Bar chart] Corporate Fraud. Countries involved, with two bars for each showing: Number of cases involving each region and number of times countries in this region were mentioned as being of concern. EU countries Tax havens/fiscal paradises Eastern European countries Others (including US and Asia) -- "Fraud without Frontiers", L95, Deloitte & Touche, 1, Stonecutter St, London EC4A 4TR. [End]

1 0

Alternative Reality
by Shift Control 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Introducing... the Alternative Reality Issue of Shift Control. This week: "Inject it a number of times over a period of several hours and you will experience what psychology textbooks refer to as an "out-of-body experience". This is a recurrent theme in descriptions of the ketamine experience - the mind, spirit or soul leaving the body... Ketamine has similar mental effects on some animals - especially monkeys, who have been observed trying to swot non-existent flies while under its influence." - Alex Bellos on ecstasy's latest rival "Only sleep, books and disk storage mechanisms, with computers becoming our third lobe, allow us to cope with a world of accelerating travel and electronic communication. But these extensions to the human brain capacity will ultimately become inadequate, and so we might consider something new: the prospect of an implanted third lobe." - Peter Cochrane on building alternative human realities through technology "'Bud Hopkins, psychiatrist and expert on alien abductions' - just the man's name got me salivating. My brain whirred with associations. Bud equals Yank, Yank equals alien, alien equals cool... 'Did you see that bit in episode 27 when you could see Scully's cleavage as she e-mailed Mulder?' a voice whispered near to me. It was clear that experts in alien abduction were not to be messed with." - Leo Hickman on the fourth annual UnConvention of paranormal phenomena Also this week: a squeaky clean way to play with yourself in the bath, a chance to write your own film reviews, more memoirs from Freebee the bee, £200 up for grabs in another short story competition, and a chance to win dinner for two at your favourite curry house. Shift Control: altering your perceptions of the net and waiting for you now at http://www.shiftcontrol.com -------------------------------- Shift Control is produced by the Guardian's New Media Lab with help from Boddingtons and Stella Artois Dry. To unsubscribe from this mailing list send e-mail to shiftcontrol-request(a)nml.guardian.co.uk with the following text in the body of the mail message: unsubscribe

1 0

Re: Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:13 4/25/97 -0700, Ernest Hua wrote: >> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 18:17:09 -0400 >> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu >> From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >> Subject: FC: Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup > >> It also creates new criminal penalties for using encryption to >> further a criminal act ... Remember that Maryland bill that would >> criminalize sending "annoying" or "harassing" email? If the >> Goodlatte bill became law, Marylanders who signed their messages >> with PGP or telnetted to local ISPs could be slammed with an >> all-expenses-paid trip to the Federal pen for five years ... In >> other words, SAFE would turn state misdemeanors into Federal >> felonies. This is not good. > >Ok. So it's kind of bad in this respect, but let's face it ... we >can't have everything OUR way, the FIRST time around. Washington >politics is just not that way (not that you need such a reminder). I think you misunderstand the situation. The government is in somewhat of a disadvantage by virtue of the fact that there is relatively little pro-censorship and anti-encryption legislation. Absent such legislation, the status-quo moves in a relatively free fashion, which is why the Internet is mostly unregulated today. >> A coalition of groups is sending a letter to Goodlatte tomorrow supporting >> the bill but expressing concern over the criminalization provision. >> Interested in signing on? Email David Sobel: sobel(a)epic.org. > >Let's let the legislative process (whatever you think of it) take its >course. That's precisely what they want us to allow, and that's exactly why we shouldn't accept it. As Tim May has repeatedly pointed out, we are probably better off with NO legislation than bad legislation, and all we've been offerred so far this year is bad legislation. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

6 5

Re: New Crypto Panel
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:34 4/24/97 -0400, John Young wrote: >Federal Register, April 24, 1997: > >DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE > >President's Export Council Subcommittee on Encryption; >Notice of Establishment > > The Secretary of Commerce has determined that the >establishment of the President's Export Council >Subcommittee on Encryption is in the public interest in >connection with the performance of duties imposed on the >Department by law. > > The Subcommittee will advise the Secretary, through the >Assistant Secretary for Export Administration, on >matters pertinent to the implementation of an encryption >policy that will support the growth of commerce while >protecting the public safety and national security. > > The Subcommittee will consist of approximately 25 members >to be appointed by the Secretary to assure a balanced >representation among the exporting community and those >Government agencies with a mandate to implement policy >regarding encryption. Notice how the not-so-subtle biases sneak in. "Balanced representation"? What about the representation of the citizenry of this country? And identifying something called "the exporting community" is also biased: Implicitly, it means those firms which _do_ export crypto, which by definition means those companies which are COMPLYING with the current crypto export rules. Naturally, that is a biased segment of the total potential membership of that group, and will tend to skew the product of that group to reinforcing the status quo as defined by government. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

CEI tells the Federal Trade Commission to be wary of regulation
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I'll forward some followup comments with the same Subject: line. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 19:30:35 -0400 From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: FC: CEI tells the Federal Trade Commission to be wary of regulation Julie DeFalco from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank here in DC, today sent me what her organization filed with the FTC earlier this month. Below CEI urges the FTC to be "extremely cautious in regulating the free flow of consumer information" online. The FTC will revisit the issue of online privacy regulations this June. Some excerpts from CEI's filing: Despite plenty of speculation, there has been no demonstration of significant actual harm resulting from the commercial collection of personal data over the Internet. This is not to say that all data posted on the Internet are good. Quite the contrary. For example, the government has made it difficult, if not impossible, to live in America today without a social security number. Congress has mandated that all states use social security numbers as driver identification numbers. And Departments of Motor Vehicles have been rather cavalier about selling the data collected, including social security numbers. That is why the outcry against Lexis-Nexis, which created a database of publicly available government information, was misplaced. [...] There is a tension between the notion that all interactions on the Internet ought to be private, and the fact that people go on to the Internet to communicate in public. The reality is that going on to the Internet is like walking on a public street, with each Web page like a private store. Each Web page has the right to set up its own conditions for entry. Such policies could range from a free-for-all data collection spree, to very strict information collection limitations. [...] Read on for the complete document. -Declan ************************** April 15, 1997 Secretary Federal Trade Commission Room H-159 Sixth St. and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20580 Consumer Privacy 1997 Comment P954807 and Request to Participate P954807 Dear Sir or Madam: The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Consumer Coalition hereby files comments on and a request to participate in Session Two of the Federal Trade Commission's upcoming public hearing on "Consumer Privacy Issues Posed by the Online Marketplace." CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan free-market research and advocacy group. We have long been involved with commercial free speech issues, and we work on privacy and Internet issues as well. The NCC is a coalition of nine consumer organizations interested in expanding consumer choice in the marketplace. Given the fact that few, if any, other consumer groups are presenting this viewpoint, we believe that our participation in these hearings would assist the Commission in its consideration of these issues. Introduction There are some central issues which must be resolved before discussing the FTC's specific questions. What is "privacy"? With all of the discussion of privacy of commercial data on the Internet, it is strange that no one has actually defined the term. The tendency is to rely instead on an "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" approach. Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis said that privacy is the "The right to be left alone - the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by a free people." Others say privacy is a result of living in a large society where people do not know each other's reputations and are not able to impose social constraints on others' behavior. "Privacy grows as the number of strangers grows," wrote Steven Nock. "Privacy is one consequence, or cost, of growing numbers of strangers." The confusion surrounding the term privacy leads one to conclude that "privacy" is like a Rorschach ink blot - different people read different things into it. "Whenever an invasion of privacy is claimed, there are usually competing values at stake." In this sense, privacy is not a right, it is a preference. Much of what people want in the name of "privacy" is that which they could actually achieve through traditionally understood conceptions of property rights and freedom of contract. But when "privacy" itself is set forth as an amorphous, floating concept, it in fact threatens property rights and freedom of contract. It is this substitution of an ill-defined "privacy right" for well-defined rights that threatens the Internet. What is the distinction between commercial data collection and government data collection? The restraints placed on government actions on the Internet are rightly and necessarily stricter than those placed on companies and individuals. Restraining government action underlies our entire political system, for the government has unique powers of coercion. Since government may fine, imprison, and (in capital cases), execute citizens, there must be very strict conditions under which government may collect information about citizens. Unfortunately, government has been less than exemplary in this realm, and has repeatedly pushed the boundaries of acceptable behavior. For example, one bill currently before Congress (H.R. 118) requires the Attorney General to "acquire data about all stops for routine traffic violations by law enforcement officers." The data include "identifying characteristics of the individual stopped, including the race and or ethnicity of as well as the approximate age of that individual." The irony of calling in the government to protect privacy on the Internet when it so cavalierly ignores it in other realms is rich. On the other hand, companies cannot impose an agenda on private individuals the way the government can. When they try to, there are civil and criminal laws there to stop them. Despite rhetoric about the "power" of large corporations, all marketers can really do is try to persuade people to buy their products. They do this through advertising. Why is data collection so important for the Internet? People have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not willing to pay for content on the Internet. Advertising Age magazine recently reported that only 25% of people polled were willing to pay to subscribe to online publications. Many subscribers to content pages freely share their passwords with others. "If Web sites can't figure out how to halt the free-for-all, a promising revenue source for on-line businesses may be threatened." Therefore, in order to develop, web sites will increasingly depend upon advertising for support. Indeed, "for most [Internet search] engines, advertising has accounted for more than 90% of total revenues. Advertising will continue to be the primary source of income for Yahoo! (and other search engines) as they set up local content ventures." America Online has found it necessary to put advertising in chat rooms to raise extra revenue (which was lost when AOL introduced its flat rate monthly user fee). At the same time, advertisers are still very hesitant about advertising on the Internet. "Where are the marketers?" asked one Advertising Age editorial. The editor of Out magazine's web page, now defunct, was quoted as saying, "advertisers aren't clamoring to get on the Web - we have to beat them up to get on the Web" (emphasis in original). Anything which makes it harder for advertising to work will have direct effects on the quality and content of the Internet, a very serious harm to Internet users. In addition, it will likely raise the cost to consumers of using the Internet. Is the issue "privacy," or is it really marketing? Much of the rhetoric surrounding the privacy issue concerns the purported power of advertising. There is a decades-old strain of thought which declares that advertising is coercive and makes people buy what they do not want. This is untrue, as examples from the Edsel, to New Coke, even to Nissan (which has a great ad campaign but has seen no increase in auto sales) show. Unfortunately, many people do not fully recognize the very real benefits consumers derive from advertising. Advertising's role in a market economy is essential, and essentially benign. Advertising lets consumers know about price and quality information. It alerts consumers to the existence of new and improved products. It even saves consumers time by helping them figure out what they do not want in advance of shopping (e.g. a new car's styling is unattractive, or it is too expensive). Curtailing advertising limits the availability of consumer information. FTC Question 2.3: What are the risks, costs and benefits of collection, compilation, sale and use of personal consumer information in this context? Despite plenty of speculation, there has been no demonstration of significant actual harm resulting from the commercial collection of personal data over the Internet. This is not to say that all data posted on the Internet are good. Quite the contrary. For example, the government has made it difficult, if not impossible, to live in America today without a social security number. Congress has mandated that all states use social security numbers as driver identification numbers. And Departments of Motor Vehicles have been rather cavalier about selling the data collected, including social security numbers. That is why the outcry against Lexis-Nexis, which created a database of publicly available government information, was misplaced. The allocation of costs and benefits deriving from data collection depends upon whom you ask. Again, privacy is a preference, not a universal right. While some may not like the very idea that data are being collected about their consumption behavior, others may not care at all. Indeed, some consumers may not mind how much information about them is available, if it means they will receive only ads targeted to their particular interests. "Consumers don't mind advertising and pay attention to it, as long as it gives them something of value." There is a tension between the notion that all interactions on the Internet ought to be private, and the fact that people go on to the Internet to communicate in public. The reality is that going on to the Internet is like walking on a public street, with each Web page like a private store. Each Web page has the right to set up its own conditions for entry. Such policies could range from a free-for-all data collection spree, to very strict information collection limitations. It is important to note that since advertising depends upon customer profile information, web pages which take extra steps to protect privacy might be relatively more expensive, and may have to charge a premium. If one individual prefers more privacy than another, this is a reasonable situation. It behooves Web pages to clearly define the terms of entry. As for chat rooms and newsgroups, their entire purpose is for people to communicate with each other. Therefore, people should not be surprised when third parties collect information which they have already placed in the public realm. There are some very serious problems with the notion that consumers somehow "own" information about themselves which they have already released publicly, or through a contract with a company. Away from the virtual world, people have repeatedly shown willingness to give up their "valuable" personal data in return for such things as rebates or coupons. From product reply questionnaires to supermarket shopper clubs, people give out information all the time, often automatically. Even when it comes to the sale of magazine subscriber lists, many people know about it and often take advantage of deals offered by other magazines and by marketers of certain products. Some say that consumers ought to be reimbursed for this sale of names. But value is subjective, and, in a market economy, a good offered for sale is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. Companies pay for the names because it saves them the time and expense that it would take to collect the publicly available information themselves. Arbitrarily assigning a price to names, rather than having it settled by negotiation through the market, assumes that everyone agrees upon the value of a name. As discussed above, this is not so. Artificially raising the price of a good (i.e. a name) through regulation would surely decrease demand for it. That outcome might please many privacy advocates, but it would hurt consumers in unseen ways, by limiting the availability and circulation of consumer information. If you release information about yourself, then that information becomes part of the public realm. For example, suppose you place an engagement announcement in a local newspaper. You do not "own" that information. That is, other parties can pick it up and use it for, say, creating mailing lists of newlyweds or brides-to-be. "The power to control information about you is the power to control the speech of others." Even when it comes to implicit contracts - the selling of magazine lists, for example - there is no reason why it is incumbent upon the magazine seller to obtain an affirmation from every subscriber before selling their names. Rather, sensitive consumers ought to pay attention to the fine print of their contracts. They can decline to contract in the first place, or establish a set of acceptable conditions, such as requesting that their names be removed from mailing lists. Keeping names off of lists is a preference and not a right. Consumers who do not like this practice have no right to impose their preferences on everyone. What goes for the real world should apply to the virtual world. The risks of this data collection by companies are overstated. The one exception is when collected information falls into the hands of the government. For example, an ice-cream shop culled names of eighteen-year-olds from the store's birthday club and sold the list to the selective service. For these customers, going into an ice-cream shop mean induction in the army. The costs and benefits of data collection are different for every consumer. Regulation would only institutionalize a set of preferences, rather than uphold rights. It might be that companies ought to be more explicit about their information collection policies. However, those companies which do take extra steps in this regard frequently tout it. In short, those consumers most concerned about data collection already have one way of satisfying that preference, without resorting to government intervention. FTC Question 2.16: How widespread is the practice of sending unsolicited e-mail? Are privacy or other consumer interests implicated by this practice? What are the sources of e-mail addresses used for this purpose? Unsolicited e-mail is very similar to junk mail in the context of "privacy." Many people find it annoying, especially since junk e-mail shifts the cost from the sender to the recipient, who pays in time and money. However, enough people like it and take advantage of it that the practice continues. E-mail marketers often harvest names through data mining - collecting e-mail addresses from newsgroup posts and chat rooms. It is clear that many consumers do not like this, but it is not clear why this practice should be made illegal, as opposed to being simply irritating. As previously noted, people who venture out into those chat rooms and newsgroups are going out into public. E-mail put out into these areas is public property, much as an engagement announcement would be. Therefore, someone collecting lists of names and sending out junk e-mails is acting perfectly legitimately. There is no way for a data collector (or even another participant) to know in advance who would like to hear about something or not. The combination of what is wanted and what is unwanted is different for everyone. Many people object to the costs of paying for unwanted e-mail (e.g. charges per e-mail received, line charges incurred while using the e-mail function). That is perfectly understandable. But if you do not wish to be put on a list, the responsibility is yours to avoid it. Fortunately, there are already options available. Most of the major Internet providers - AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe - already have banned junk mailings. This provision of what some see as a valuable service is perfectly legitimate as well. In addition, AOL also permits people who participate in chat rooms to use up to five false names. Along with the ease of finding anonymizers to surf the Web, "going incognito" has never been so easy to do. As the Washington Post aptly noted, "Psychologically, the more interesting question is why folks who long since gave up the attempt to stop mass telemarketing or ordinary delivered-to-the-door junk mail find it so much more immediately threatening to receive mail that can be deleted at the touch of a button." FTC Question 2.18: What costs does unsolicited commercial e-mail impose on consumers or others? Are there available means of avoiding or limiting such costs? If so, what are they? The wording of the question suggests that the FTC believes that the primary cost of unsolicited e-mail is "privacy." Once again, "privacy" is a preference. Therefore, junk e-mail is a cost only to those who personally object to data collection. It might be useful to look at this situation in a different way. Restricting data collection reduces the possibility of target marketing. Perhaps some consumers would be happy to receive e-mail relating only to their particular interests. As target marketing becomes more accurate due to data collection, it would actually reduce the amount of unwanted e-mail. Sailing enthusiasts would not receive gardening catalogs, gourmands would not receive home improvement information. In addition, clamping down on data collection will hurt smaller companies and non-profits, who might find this data collection useful in finding new customers or members. Well-known non-profits, for example, receive a great deal of publicity and exposure in the general media; how many other, smaller groups would like to find people interested in their work via the Internet? One of the biggest objections to data collection is its awesome speed. But this is not a sufficient basis for regulation; it is an extension of objections to data collection in general. Combing a phone book manually or by computer is essentially the same; the latter just takes less time. Use of data collection technology makes information cheaper and more available to a variety of groups, from non-profits to associations dedicated to one or another hobbies or interests. Conclusion At a minimum, the FTC should insist on a real and significant showing of harm resulting from commercial data collection, rather than rely upon claims of consumer irritation. The FTC should be extremely cautious in regulating the free flow of consumer information. Any regulations are bound to have unforeseen effects. For example, the European Privacy Directives have made it very difficult to exchange employee information between branches of the same company located in different countries. Instead, the FTC should confine itself to policing fraud and investigating any actual injury. As Esther Dyson put it, "The goal is a market in privacy practices. That will result in constantly improving standards rather than rigid ones set by law, and in decentralized, speedy enforcement" (emphasis in original). Julie C. DeFalco on behalf of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and for the National Consumer Coalition ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is public. To join fight-censorship-announce, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu. More information is at http://www.eff.org/~declan/fc/

1 0

Re: CEI tells the Federal Trade Commission to be wary of regulation
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 20:11:37 -0500 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> To: declan(a)well.com, fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: FC: CEI tells the Federal Trade Commission to be wary of regulation At 6:30 PM -0500 4/25/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Julie DeFalco from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian >think tank here in DC, today sent me what her organization filed with the >FTC earlier this month. Below CEI urges the FTC to be "extremely cautious >in regulating the free flow of consumer information" online. The FTC will >revisit the issue of online privacy regulations this June. Some excerpts >from CEI's filing: > > Despite plenty of speculation, there has > been no demonstration of significant > actual harm resulting from the commercial > collection of personal data over the > Internet. This is not to say that all data > posted on the Internet are good. Quite > the contrary. For example, the government > has made it difficult, if not impossible, > to live in America today without a social > security number. Congress has mandated > that all states use social security > numbers as driver identification numbers. > And Departments of Motor Vehicles have > been rather cavalier about selling the > data collected, including social security > numbers. That is why the outcry against > Lexis-Nexis, which created a database of > publicly available government information, > was misplaced. [...] I haven't looked at the rest of the CEI report says, but this last statement about P-TRAK is factually incorrect. Lexis-Nexis did not create a database of "publicy available government information,' they bought credit record information from TransUnion, a credit reporting agency, and exploited a loophole in the Fair Credit Reporting Act which allowed them to sell the credit "header" information. Assuming that CEI does not question the public objection to P-TRAK, what solution do they propose? There is no contractual relationship between individuals (who are simply record subjects in thsi instance) and look-up services such as P-TRAK and therefore no opportunity for markets in any meaningful sense to operate. Isn't this a casebook example of where regulation is appropriate? Marc Rotenberg. EPIC. ================================================================== Marc Rotenberg, director * +1 202 544 9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * +1 202 547 5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE Suite 301 * rotenberg(a)epic.org Washington, DC 20003 USA + http://www.epic.org ==================================================================

1 0

Re: CEI tells the Federal Trade Commission to be wary of regulation
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 22:44:51 -0400 From: Michael Sims <jellicle(a)inch.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: CEI tells the Federal Trade Commission to be wary of regulat I've just read through this thing. What a load of crap. The libertarian bent shows through, assuming that businesses have a right to consumer information and denying that is sacrilege. I'll just do a quick red penning of the thing: > CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan free-market research > and advocacy group. Libertarians aren't a party? > The confusion surrounding the term privacy leads one > to conclude that "privacy" is like a Rorschach ink > blot - different people read different things into it. > "Whenever an invasion of privacy is claimed, there > are usually competing values at stake." In this > sense, privacy is not a right, it is a preference. Of course there are competing values at stake. Usually, it's your "right to make a buck" vs. my "right to be let alone". I don't think corporations have a "right to make a buck". > Much of what people want in the name of "privacy" is > that which they could actually achieve through > traditionally understood conceptions of property > rights and freedom of contract. But when "privacy" > itself is set forth as an amorphous, floating concept, > it in fact threatens property rights and freedom of > contract. It is this substitution of an ill-defined > "privacy right" for well-defined rights that threatens > the Internet. In other words, if consumers have any say in the reselling of their names and information, it threatens business's "rights". Exactly what contract did I sign when I posted to alt.beavis.and.butthead and received ads about ab rollers and make-money-fast? > On the other hand, companies cannot impose an agenda > on private individuals the way the government can. > When they try to, there are civil and criminal laws > there to stop them. Despite rhetoric about the > "power" of large corporations, all marketers can > really do is try to persuade people to buy their > products. They do this through advertising. Corporations good, government bad. > Why is data collection so important for the Internet? > > People have repeatedly demonstrated that they are not > willing to pay for content on the Internet. > Advertising Age magazine recently reported that only > 25% of people polled were willing to pay to subscribe > to online publications. Many subscribers to content > pages freely share their passwords with others. "If > Web sites can't figure out how to halt the > free-for-all, a promising revenue source for on-line > businesses may be threatened." Oh no! Business may lose a percentage of their bottom line! Scream! Run away! Sigh. I wasn't aware there was a constitutional right to make money in a certain fashion. There IS an [interpreted] constitutional right to privacy. > Therefore, in order to develop, web sites will > increasingly depend upon advertising for support. Quite frankly, there's a godawful amount of content out there now, being delivered for at a loss, or break even, or a slight profit. I fail to see the business "right" to turn the net into an advertising medium, which so compels this whole statement. Aren't cookies enough? geeez. > At the same time, advertisers are still very hesitant > about advertising on the Internet. "Where are the > marketers?" asked one Advertising Age editorial. The > editor of Out magazine's web page, now defunct, was > quoted as saying, "advertisers aren't clamoring to get > on the Web - we have to beat them up to get on the > Web" (emphasis in original). Anything which makes it > harder for advertising to work will have direct > effects on the quality and content of the Internet, a > very serious harm to Internet users. In addition, it > will likely raise the cost to consumers of using the > Internet. A flat-out lie. Advertising pays no costs of my using the net, and a very small percentage of the web sites I visit are ad-supported. What they mean to say is, "If you make targetted advertising harder, we'll have to rely on less-well-targetted advertising, and businesses may make less money off the net." So? > Is the issue "privacy," or is it really marketing? > > Much of the rhetoric surrounding the privacy issue > concerns the purported power of advertising. There is > a decades-old strain of thought which declares that > advertising is coercive and makes people buy what they > do not want. This is untrue, as examples from the > Edsel, to New Coke, even to Nissan (which has a great > ad campaign but has seen no increase in auto sales) > show. Unfortunately, many people do not fully > recognize the very real benefits consumers derive from > advertising. Which corporations support this, uh, "think-tank" again? There's actually a variety of simple formulas relating how much advertising is required to make a movie a hit, for example. Publicize an incredibly lousy movie sufficiently, and it will turn a profit. For them to deny that advertising has any power over consumers (not people in this corporate-viewpoint paper; only consumers) is to deny reality. > Advertising's role in a market economy is essential, > and essentially benign. Advertising lets consumers > know about price and quality information. It alerts > consumers to the existence of new and improved > products. It even saves consumers time by helping > them figure out what they do not want in advance of > shopping (e.g. a new car's styling is unattractive, or > it is too expensive). Curtailing advertising limits > the availability of consumer information. That's real funny. You're right, I'm being done a valuable service for my own good when I get spam email for ab rollers. > FTC Question 2.3: What are the risks, costs and > benefits of collection, compilation, sale and use > of personal consumer information in this context? > > Despite plenty of speculation, there has been no > demonstration of significant actual harm resulting > from the commercial collection of personal data over > the Internet. This is not to say that all data posted > on the Internet are good. Quite the contrary. For > example, the government has made it difficult, if not > impossible, to live in America today without a social > security number. Congress has mandated that all > states use social security numbers as driver > identification numbers. And Departments of Motor > Vehicles have been rather cavalier about selling the > data collected, including social security numbers. > That is why the outcry against Lexis-Nexis, which > created a database of publicly available government > information, was misplaced. Marc Rotenberg already got this one, so I'll forbear. Not only do they have the facts wrong, they turn it into an example of "business good, government bad" when it's really an example of "business seeking profit runs up against consumers who've had enough". > The allocation of costs and benefits deriving from > data collection depends upon whom you ask. Yeah, and if you ask a pro-business think-tank, their lies will be slanted this way..... > Again, privacy is a preference, not a universal right. Unless you count that whole Bill of Rights thing, of course. They must be referring to other countries here. > While some may not like the very idea that data are being collected > about their consumption behavior, others may not care at all. > Indeed, some consumers may not mind how much information about them > is available, if it means they will receive only ads targeted to > their particular interests. Like ab rollers. > "Consumers don't mind advertising and pay attention to it, as long > as it gives them something of value." Some people may not mind be gunned down on the street. Eliminate the penalties for murder because some people might like it. > There is a tension between the notion that all > interactions on the Internet ought to be private, and > the fact that people go on to the Internet to > communicate in public. I go out on the street to communicate in public too, but that doesn't give you the right to phone me 20 times a day selling ab rollers. > The reality is that going on to the Internet is like walking on a > public street, with each Web page like a private store. Sounds good to me. Does my walking down the street give blanket permission for anyone who sees me to call me up and pitch ab rollers? No? Does my posting to Usenet give blanket permission for anyone who egreps the news disk to mail me and pitch ab rollers? > Each Web page has the right to set up its own conditions for entry. > Such policies could range from a free-for-all data collection > spree, to very strict information collection limitations. Oh, they could. But without any governmental regulation, I think you know which end of the spectrum it will settle at. Wired's site sends out what, 12 or 15 different cookies? Those slow-loading sites in the future won't be because of the content, it will be because of the tracking they're doing. > It is important to note that since advertising depends > upon customer profile information, No, not really. "...is made more efficient by...", sure, but depends? No. > web pages which take extra steps to protect privacy might be > relatively more expensive, and may have to charge a premium. If > one individual prefers more privacy than another, this is a > reasonable situation. Pay to avoid ads! > It behooves Web pages to clearly define the terms of entry. As for > chat rooms and newsgroups, their entire purpose is for people to > communicate with each other. Therefore, people should not be > surprised when third parties collect information which they have > already placed in the public realm. Oh, surprised, no. Annoyed when their "collections" endanger the usability of my email, and cost me substantial time, yes. > There are some very serious problems with the notion that consumers > somehow "own" information about themselves which they have already > released publicly, or through a contract with a company. Consumers have no rights. Businesses have rights. Remember this. > Away from the virtual world, people have repeatedly shown > willingness to give up their "valuable" personal data in return for > such things as rebates or coupons. Where's my coupon for posting to Usenet? > From product reply questionnaires to supermarket shopper clubs, > people give out information all the time, often ^^^^^^ Substitute "idiots". I never fill out any of that crap. > automatically. Even when it comes to the sale of magazine > subscriber lists, many people know about it and often take > advantage of deals offered by other magazines and by marketers of > certain products. Sure, buddy. Like my subscription to Scientific American, which has resulted in my being sent direct mail for tons of shit designed to appeal to 65-year-old scientists. > Some say that consumers ought to be reimbursed for this sale of > names. But value is subjective, and, in a market economy, a good > offered for sale is only worth what someone else is willing to pay > for it. Companies pay for the names because it saves them the time > and expense that it would take to collect the publicly available > information themselves. Arbitrarily assigning a price to names, > rather than having it settled by negotiation through the market, > assumes that everyone agrees upon the value of a name. As discussed > above, this is not so. Artificially raising the price of a good > (i.e. a name) through regulation would surely decrease demand for > it. That outcome might please many privacy advocates, but it would > hurt consumers in unseen ways, by limiting the availability and > circulation of consumer information. Translation: it would dent advertising costs and put them on the advertiser instead of the receiver of junk ads. Consumer bad, business good: we don't like this idea. We like the costs being on the consumer. > If you release information about yourself, then that information > becomes part of the public realm. For example, suppose you place an > engagement announcement in a local newspaper. You do not "own" > that information. That is, other parties can pick it up and use it > for, say, creating mailing lists of newlyweds or brides-to-be. "The > power to control information about you is the power to control the > speech of others." Nice platitude. I would think libertarian property rights would hold sway here, but I guess they're conflicting with "business good". > Even when it comes to implicit contracts - the selling of magazine > lists, for example - there is no reason why it is incumbent upon > the magazine seller to obtain an affirmation from every subscriber > before selling their names. Rather, sensitive consumers ought to > pay attention to the fine print of their contracts. There's no part of the Sci Am subscription form which says "by subscribing, we will sell your name around the world to junk mailers." Believe me, I've looked. > They can decline to contract in the first place, or establish a set > of acceptable conditions, such as requesting that their names be > removed from mailing lists. A farce. You and I know that business will require disclosure of personal info as a prerequisite for doing business if it lies within their scope. I think Radio Shack was a particularly egregious example of this, requesting names, addresses and phone numbers even for cash purposes. I've told them to fuck off on more than one occasion. Imagine if your phone number was scribed on the outside of your body, as your email address is on this posting... > Keeping names off of lists is a preference and not a right. Businesses have rights! Consumers have none. > Consumers who do not like this practice have no right to impose > their preferences on everyone. Businesses have rights! Consumers have none. > What goes for the real world should apply to the virtual world. Okay, ASK me for my info, just like you have to in the real world. Sounds fair to me. > The risks of this data collection by companies are overstated. I've seen more than one account disabled by excess junk email. Think it's a pain now? Just wait. > The one exception is when collected information falls into the > hands of the government. For example, an ice-cream shop culled > names of eighteen-year-olds from the store's birthday club and sold > the list to the selective service. For these customers, going > into an ice-cream shop mean induction in the army. Government bad, business good. > The costs and benefits of data collection are different for every > consumer. Regulation would only institutionalize a set of > preferences, rather than uphold rights. It might be that companies > ought to be more explicit about their information collection > policies. However, those companies which do take extra steps in > this regard frequently tout it. In short, those consumers most > concerned about data collection already have one way of satisfying > that preference, without resorting to government intervention. Which way was that? Choosing only marketers who say they won't resell information? What if they lie? > FTC Question 2.16: How widespread is the practice of sending > unsolicited e-mail? Are privacy or other consumer interests > implicated by this practice? What are the sources of e-mail > addresses used for this purpose? > > Unsolicited e-mail is very similar to junk mail in the context of > "privacy." Many people find it annoying, especially since junk > e-mail shifts the cost from the sender to the recipient, who pays > in time and money. However, enough people like it and take > advantage of it that the practice continues. No, the cost of sending the advertisement in the first place is low enough that the practice continues. Typical response to a junk emailing is about 20% of receivers will reply with hate, the majority will ignore it, and fewer than .1% will respond favorably. This CEI statement is grossly misinformed or simply lying. > E-mail marketers often harvest names through data mining - > collecting e-mail addresses from newsgroup posts and chat rooms. It > is clear that many consumers do not like this, but it is not clear > why this practice should be made illegal, as opposed to being > simply irritating. It's an irritation that government has the power to stop; and Nothing short of government action will stop it; and Government action will not cause any collateral damage. Seems like a perfect case for government action to me. > As previously noted, people who venture out into those chat rooms > and newsgroups are going out into public. E-mail put out into these > areas is public property, Au contraire. Saying such a thing does not make it so. Public property? No. > much as an engagement announcement would be. Therefore, someone > collecting lists of names and sending out junk e-mails is acting > perfectly legitimately. There is no way for a data collector (or > even another participant) to know in advance who would like to hear > about something or not. It's safe to assume the majority do not. That's true with 100% certainty. Yet this paper attempts to say the consumer is being done a service. > The combination of what is wanted and what is unwanted is different > for everyone. I don't want anything that is completely unsolicited trying to sell me stuff. This is true for 99% of the human race. > Many people object to the costs of paying for unwanted e-mail (e.g. > charges per e-mail received, line charges incurred while using the > e-mail function). That is perfectly understandable. But if you do > not wish to be put on a list, the responsibility is yours to avoid > it. It's not companies' responsibility to not call you at 3AM - it's your responsiblity to not have the phone on the hook! > Fortunately, there are already options available. Most of > the major Internet providers - AOL, Prodigy, CompuServe - already > have banned junk mailings. This provision of what some see as a > valuable service is perfectly legitimate as well. In addition, AOL > also permits people who participate in chat rooms to use up to five > false names. Along with the ease of finding anonymizers to surf > the Web, "going incognito" has never been so easy to do. They know as well as anyone that the "default" is to reveal plenty of information, and few users will stray from that. They also know that neither AOL nor Prodigy nor Compuserve have "banned" junk emailings. They are lying, yet again. What the online services have done is take action against a certain junk emailer who was reducing the usefulness of their email systems with the volume of junk mail inflicted. > As the Washington Post aptly noted, "Psychologically, the more > interesting question is why folks who long since gave up the > attempt to stop mass telemarketing or ordinary > delivered-to-the-door junk mail find it so much more immediately > threatening to receive mail that can be deleted at the touch of a > button." Mass telemarketing is far from illegal. It is regulated to avoid the extreme abuses which occur with 100% certainty when businesses see a chance to make money. As should junk emailing. > FTC Question 2.18: What costs does unsolicited commercial e-mail > impose on consumers or others? Are there available means of > avoiding or limiting such costs? If so, what are they? > > The wording of the question suggests that the FTC believes that the > primary cost of unsolicited e-mail is "privacy." Translation: we would like to avoid a discussion of the very real dollar costs imposed upon unsuspecting email recipients. The wording of the question suggests no such thing, but that's what we'd like to talk about. > Once again, "privacy" is a preference. Forgot that Fourth Amendment again, eh? > Therefore, junk e-mail is a cost only to those who personally > object to data collection. It might be useful to look at this > situation in a different way. Unless you count such mundanities as time and dollars as "costs". Funny how these pro-business types are great at accounting usually, but forget all that when it comes to making these statements. > In addition, clamping down on data collection will hurt smaller > companies and non-profits, who might find this data collection > useful in finding new customers or members. Well-known > non-profits, for example, receive a great deal of publicity and > exposure in the general media; how many other, smaller groups would > like to find people interested in their work via the Internet? Wave the non-profit flag to disguise the HUGE profit-seeking behemoth out there. Great. As if I'd ever help aa non-profit who spammed me. > One of the biggest objections to data collection is its awesome > speed. But this is not a sufficient basis for regulation; it is an > extension of objections to data collection in general. Actually, it is. The abuses become significantly greater and therefore more of a concern to government. > Use of data collection technology makes information cheaper and > more available to a variety of groups, from non-profits to > associations dedicated to one or another hobbies or interests. As if that would account for .00000001% of the use. > As Esther Dyson put it, "The goal is a market in privacy practices. > That will result in constantly improving standards rather than > rigid ones set by law, and in decentralized, speedy enforcement" > (emphasis in original). You know how this "market" will go? Businesses willget together, say "Hey, there's no point fighting over this, let's just standardize on full consumer disclosure. It will help all of us." and that will be it, no more market. -- Michael Sims

1 0

Query: Who has left the U.S. to evade the law?
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An associate is trying to find an American who left the country to operate a high-tech business, possibly illegal, outside the U.S. to evade American laws. Think hacking/cracking, money laundering, child porn, black market. This is for a profile in _Details_ magazine. Any tips? My friend is discreet and trustworthy and lives in New York City. -Declan

3 3

Re: CEI tells the Federal Trade Commission to be wary of regulation
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 19:19:49 -0500 From: Mikus Grinbergs <mikus(a)bga.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > Julie DeFalco from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian > think tank here in DC, today sent me what her organization filed with the > FTC earlier this month. DID YOU HAVE TO POST THIS to your list? Sure, it publicises what the "other side" has to say, but I find so much to object to in practically every sentence that it almost makes me ill. I can only hope that other filings to the FTC display more respect for the individual than this does. ---- >> >> The confusion surrounding the term privacy leads one >> to conclude that "privacy" is like a Rorschach ink >> blot - different people read different things into it. >> "Whenever an invasion of privacy is claimed, there >> are usually competing values at stake." In this >> sense, privacy is not a right, it is a preference. Eek! Here the CEI is re-defining "privacy as a right" into "privacy as a preference"! In my opinion, the word "right" conveys a sense of moral conviction, whereas the substituted word "preference" conveys (as it is intended to) a connotation of malleable irresolution. I am not a lawyer, nor am I familiar with the various court precedents, but if "pursuit of happiness" can be considered a "right", I would argue that so can "privacy" be considered a "right". Is there even a dividing line between the two? >> >> Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis said that privacy >> is the "The right to be left alone - the most >> comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by >> a free people." This quote is a brilliant stroke on the part of CEI - its presence here reassures those who agree with Justice Brandeis (of whom I am one), but the idea of value to "being left alone" is disregarded throughout the rest of CEI's submission. Let me illustrate what I think is meant by "privacy": Suppose I do not have a secretary to take care of my personal correspondence. As long as I receive only a few letters each day urging me to do something, I consider that to be a tolerable "cost" associated with living in this modern-day society. But suppose the mailman starts bringing me hundreds of such letters each day -- it will take me time and effort just to dispose of them (even if I did not look at their content) -- time and effort diverted from my goal of "pursuit of happiness". Because I was not left alone, my ability to _choose by myself_ what to do and what not to do (that is, my *privacy*) was violated. ---- >> >> The allocation of costs and benefits deriving from >> data collection depends upon whom you ask. Again, >> privacy is a preference, not a universal right. This seems to be the central message of what CEI is proposing -- run a poll, and if the plurality of respondents say that they see a benefit to society of identifying who you are each time you buy something (or even enter any store or Web page) -- why then, let's all be good citizens and not be irritated and just present our tamper-proof IDs when asked. >> <snip> The FTC should be extremely >> cautious in regulating the free flow of consumer information. [Surely CEI can convince them that for "free flow of consumer information" what is important is the flow of information about consumers to marketers -- after all, it is the market that rules, not vague intangibles like "individual privacy".] mikus

1 0

Re: Cato forum on liquor advertising and electronic media
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: >The Center for Media Education is trying to accelerate this process. In a >fearmongering report earlier this year, the group demanded that a slew of >government agencies -- the FCC, FDA, FTC, CDC, NCI, and the WHO -- take >"urgent agction" to "protect" America's children from tobacco and liquor >advertising online. ............................................... I wish these people would go live in the U.S.S.R., or something.(*) They are the ones who give the Censors of the World support for the idea that it's okay to instigate restrictions against free expression, because obviously the people want it - they're calling for it. It doesn't matter that it's not a Good Thing to limit expression; it's a matter of majority interest. I wish they would all go down to the sea together. But I'm being depressingly negative. Anyway, who cares. As long as there are innovators creating high techology and useful software, one can always stay steps ahead, right. (*) yes, I know it doesn't exist anymore. Too bad. Some people belong in a State like that. Where they can live with each other and never grow up, but only wither away from atrophy of the mind. .. Blanc

7 7

e$: Time for a Financial Cryptography "IdeaLab"?
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Last week, a close friend handed me a February issue of Inc. magazine, the one with an article in it about Bill Gross and his IdeaLab project in Pasadena. Since then, I haven't been able to get Yet Another Idea out of my mind. Gross, a veteran entrepreneur with quite a few successful software startups to his name, has set up a company which uses an investment pool to create and spin off a rapid succession of small internet startups, using a sort of "internet startup in a box" approach, all built around a common core of financial, legal, and marketing people. The idea is to free an entrepreneur to concentrate on designing, building, and selling the startup's product, in this case, some kind of internet software or service. IdeaLab takes a minority equity position in return for its money. A Boston company which has been doing something like this, only on an internal basis, is Thermo-Electron Corporation, who has made much more money spinning off new companies than it ever could as a stand-alone industrial enterprise. IdeaLab thinks that it can have this kind of approach with internet startups above all others because everything on the net happens so fast and the cost of entry is so small that there are actual diseconomies of scale. Moore's Law in a geodesic market as capital surfactant, in other words. :-). Anyway, you can read more about all this, and IdeaLab itself, in the Inc. Magazine archives: <http://www.inc.com/>. So, after a couple of years of sitting on the sidelines and cheering people on (I've had a bunch of fun, but my tax return for last year was a miracle of financial brevity :-)), of second-guessing the market and being right more often than I'd care to think about, I've decided to get into the game and play a bit myself, and see what happens. What I propose to do is to create a Boston-based copy of the IdeaLab concept, focusing on financial cryptography, and, in particular, peer-to-peer internet transaction settlement: internet checking, digital bearer certificate technology for cash and securities, micromoney "mitochondria", that kind of stuff. To do this, I want to collect a core group of financial, legal, and marketing/promotion folks who would work for the lab company itself, and in support of the startup firms it creates, until those firms earn enough money to hire their own people for those jobs. So, I need people in those disciplines who're not only familiar with the net, but also the idea of geodesic markets, and of financial cryptography, but, more important, people who have participated in founding as many startup companies as possible. Finding those people may be hard, but I think they're out there. More important than that, I'm looking for a small initial group of "angel" shareholders who not only invest in the first round of funding for the lab, but can work as advisors to these usually very young technological pioneers, and teach them to think in profit-and-loss terms. Over time, I'd like to populate the advisor pool with successful graduates of the lab. The first round of "angel" funding will be to get the lab started and start the first few companies in areas where I think things are going to pop in the transaction settlement market shortly. A second round would be big enough to get participation from the institutional investment community, but the capitalization of the entire project won't be huge. IdeaLab was started with $5 million, for example. Right now, I think $10 million would be the most I could ask for with a straight face for the whole effort. :-) I'll leave dreamy discussions of some hypothetical hockey-stick investment return curve for the prospectus, where it belongs. ;-). I'm at the utter ground floor on this at the moment. No business plan, just what I think is a pretty good idea. So, I need all the help I can get. If you've any ideas, particularly if you've worked on any of the components I need to make this work, I'd love to hear from you. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Re: SNL/NSA Crypto Security
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:57 PM 4/21/97 -0400, John Young wrote: [...] >One affidavit cites Payne's claim to knowing how to "easily >break public key encryption" but refused to tell NSA, thus >harming SNL's customer relations. > >http://jya.com/nsasuit4.htm Indeed. Let's try to get a copy of the draft mentioned in the affidavit: " 20. Also included with the letter to Professor Fushimi was a draft document written by plaintiff Payne entitled a "Public Key Encryption Is Easily Broken." No member of Dr. Payne's management was advised of his plan to release this document and Sandia had no opportunity to inform NSA of his plans. " -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

DigiCash appoints CEO and...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 28 Apr 1997 22:39:42 +1000 From: Andreas Furche <andreas(a)digicash.com> Reply-To: andreas(a)digicash.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ica(a)syd.dit.csiro.au Subject: DigiCash appoints CEO and... Sender: e-payments-owner(a)digicash.com Precedence: bulk +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ This message was addressed to: e-payments(a)lists.commerce.net +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ DIGICASH APPOINTS CEO, INCREASES OUTSIDE INVESTMENT, AND MOVES HEADQUARTERS TO CALIFORNIA MENLO PARK, CA (April 28, 1997) -- DigiCash Inc, a leader and pioneer in smart card technology and secure and private Internet payments software, today announced the appointment of Michael Nash as chief executive officer (CEO) of its worldwide operations. DigiCash founder, Dr. David Chaum, also announced significant additional investment that will fuel the company's growth. Nash will join Dr. Chaum, Nicholas Negroponte, and new investor David Marquardt of August Capital, on an expanded board that adds new resources and depth of industry experience to DigiCash. His primary mission will be to add business and marketing excellence to the world class cryptographic expertise and technology that has enabled development of such cutting edge products as ecash(tm) and OEM smart card systems, for which DigiCash is recognized throughout the banking and financial services industry. "Mike brings a new dimension to DigiCash with his background in the business of electronic payments and his international marketing experience with Visa, American Express and the SmartCard Group at Amdahl," said Dr. Chaum. "The partnership that we form will take this company a great step forward and help us grow into a significant force in the business of electronic commerce." Nash, who conceived and developed VisaCash, a smart card-based, stored value payment system, will create an international sales and marketing strategy for smart cards and ecash(tm), the unique Internet payment system which offers both security and privacy. DigiCash is already providing ecash(tm) systems to Deutsche Bank in Germany, Bank Austria, Advance Bank in Australia, Den norske Bank of Norway and the Nomura Research Institute in Japan, as well as other leading banks. Further expansion in North America, where the company is newly headquartered, will be a major focus for the new CEO. Another reason for the move is to facilitate alliances with firms in the Silicon Valley area that are pioneering commerce on the Internet. "Ecash(tm) is at the forefront of a revolution in the way the world does business," said Nash. "DigiCash technology offers the security and privacy that is inherent in traditional bearer instruments such as coins and bank notes, but with the flexibility and power of the Internet. This is a great opportunity to shape the new way commerce will be done." DigiCash interim Chairman Nicholas Negroponte, author of Being Digital, head of the MIT Media Lab and a member of the Motorola Inc. board is quoted as saying, "Ecash(tm) is the most exciting thing I've seen in 20 years." Negroponte is also a general partner of Applied Technology Investors, one of the firms that is backing DigiCash. Newly appointed director David Marquardt, General Partner at August Capital, and previously Technology Ventures Inc. (TVI) was an early investor in Intuit, Sun Microsystems and Verifone. He also was the sole venture investor in Microsoft where he currently serves on their board of investors. He too is excited by the possibilities of the technology that lies at the heart of DigiCash Products, saying, "This is the type of basic infrastructure that will be essential for the commercial growth of electronic payments on the Internet." The target market for ecash(tm) is enormous. There are more than 20,000 banks and over 10 million retailers around the world that are potential customers for ecash(tm) transactions, and more than a billion consumers who want the security, privacy and convenience of electronic coins and banknotes. Nash, who has already taken up his appointment with DigiCash, sees this entire market as an opportunity for his company. As well as targeting additional leading banks and other customers in North America and the Pacific Rim, he has a stated goal of establishing relationships with leading banks in the G7 nations, a goal which is already more than half accomplished. About DigiCash DigiCash is a private venture capital backed corporation with headquarters in the United States and offices in The Netherlands, Australia and Singapore. Founded by Dr. David Chaum, a luminary in the field of cryptography and electronic cash technology, the company creates and markets the most sophisticated software in the world for smart cards and secure, private Internet payment transactions. - end - EDITORS NOTE: More information on DigiCash and biographies of Michael Nash and Dr. David Chaum are available from LVA or by accessing the DigiCash Website at http://www.digicash.com/ DigiCash and ecash are trademarks of DigiCash and should always be referred to as such. All other trademarks are the property of their owners. Contact details: Netherlands United States DigiCash bv LVA Toby Chaum Ian Cheeseman Ph: +31 20 665 2611 Ph: +1 860 739 5598 Fax: +31 20 665 1126 Fax: +1 860 691 0353 email: press(a)digicash.com email: icheeseman(a)mcimail.com United Kingdom/Europe Australia: LVA UK DigiCash Pty Ltd Mike Hardwidge Andreas Furche Ph: +44 181 994 6762 Ph: +61 2 9375 2316 Fax: +44 181 995 3050 Fax: +61 2 9375 2121 email: 101765.1155(a)compuserve.com email: andreas(a)digicash.com -- Andreas Furche Level 29 The Chifley Tower Managing Director 2 Chifley Square DigiCash Pty. Ltd. Sydney 2000, Australia e-mail: andreas(a)digicash.com ph +61 2 9375 2316 mobile (0419) 385 569 (NEW number!) fax +61 2 9375 2121 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent by a majordomo-based automatic list manager. Subscriptions to and archives of this list are available to any person or organization. For further information send a mail message to 'e-payments-request(a)lists.commerce.net' with 'help' (no quotations) contained in the body of your message. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

AES Comments
by Bruce Schneier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

26 April 1997 Director, Computer Systems Laboratory Attn: FIPS for AES Comments Technology Building, Room A231 National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 RE: Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) Dear Mr. Director: This letter is to offer additional advice subsequent to the 15 April 1997 meeting at NIST, "Developing the Advanced Encryption Workshop." I appreciate your institute's efforts to develop an AES, and am pleased that you recognize the importance of this task. Much of the discussion at the 15 April meeting centered around the "Minimum Acceptability Requirements" and the "Evaluation Criteria" for the AES. These are important metrics: good Evaluation Criteria will ensure that the best algorithm is selected as the AES, while good Minimum Acceptability Requirements will limit the submissions to high-quality ones. At the meeting you repeatedly stated that you intend that AES will be a standard for 20-30 years. To me, this means that the algorithm will be used in legacy applications for at least another ten, securing information that may be required to be confidential for yet another ten. Assuming we have a standard approved by the year 2000, the AES must be secure through the year 2050. We need to look at AES requirements with this in mind. Clearly, any algorithm approved for the AES must be secure. The difficulty will be choosing among several secure algorithms. In this letter, I would like to ignore the important problem of deciding if an algorithm is secure (and if it will remain secure through the year 2050), and concentrate on the non-cryptographic requirements. At the meeting we discussed both flexibility and efficiency: what they mean, how important they are, and how to compare. Evaluating encryption algorithms on 32-bit processors such as the Pentium seems short-sighted for such a long-lasting standard. Just as the DES, designed for dedicated hardware in the mid 1970s, is inefficient on any modern processor, any AES designed for today's computer architectures will be inefficient on whatever is used 20 years from now. That isn't much of a problem, though. Programmers have spent long hours optimizing DES for different architectures. And computing power still doubles every eighteen months: any algorithm becomes ten times faster just by waiting five years. Everything is fast on the 64-bit DEC Alpha. The difficulty is in the low end: embedded systems, smart cards. The lesson of the past 20 years of computing seems to be that while the high end always gets better, the low end never goes away. We're still programming tiny 8-bit microprocessors; instead of being used in desktop computers, they're in cellular phones, automobiles, electrical meters, and smart cards. These processors will be around for a long time to come, in Dick-Tracy-like wristwatch communicators, small affixable processors (Micron is building the technology), and who knows what else (nanotechnology?). The AES should be efficient on the low-end processors that are around today, and be scalable to 16-, 32-, and 64-bit processors. And think fast; almost anything written today is faster than triple-DES (see table below). Encryption at 16 clock cycles per byte; that takes real work. Clock Cycles per Algorithm Byte Encrypted Name on a Pentium SEAL (stream) 4 RC4 (stream) 7 Blowfish 18 Khufu 20 RC5 (16 rounds) 23 DES 45 IDEA 50 Triple-DES 108 With this in mind, I propose a set of Minimum Acceptability Criteria that pushes the envelope of current encryption algorithms: A variable key, supporting (at least) a 128- and 256-bit key . Both block modes and a stream modes, with the steam modes at least five times faster than the block modes. Block modes with a 128-bit block. A standard hash-function mode. A standard MAC (Message Authentication Code) mode. Variability in the algorithm to provide a family key for different applications. Encryption speeds (in clock cycles per byte encrypted): No more than 64 on an 8-bit smart card with a 128-bit key. No more than 32 on a 16-bit processor with a 128-bit key. No more than 16 on a Pentium, Pentium Pro, PowerPC, or DEC Alpha with a 128-bit key. No more than double with a 256-bit key on any platform. Encryption and decryption speeds within 10% of each other. Key setup no more than 5 times the speed to encrypt one block for a 128-bit key, and no more than 10 times encryption speed for a 256-bit key. Implementable in hardware with a total table size of less than 256 bytes. Hardware encryption throughput of one block per clock cycle (given enough gates), with a maximum latency of 16 clock cycles. Minimum RAM requirements (RAM only, not code or tables) of no more than 64 bytes on an 8-bit smart-card processor. Minimum table size of no more than 256 bytes on an 8-bit smart-card processor. These requirements are not easy to meet. As far as I know, no published block cipher meets them all (although some come close in many areas). But requirements such as these will challenge the world's cryptographic research organizations to create something useful. I know you realize that the selection process will take several years to complete. Therefor, I urge you to approve triple-DES as an interim standard. This will satisfy users who need a 64-bit block cipher for compatibility reasons, while allowing you the time required to choose and approve the best AES you can. I applaud your efforts in this matter, and I look forward seeing your call for submissions in the Federal Register Sincerely, Bruce Schneier ************************************************************************ * Bruce Schneier 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002,000, * Counterpane Systems 000,000,000,000,000,000,002,000,000,002,293 * schneier(a)counterpane.com The last prime number...alphabetically! * (612) 823-1098 Two vigintillion, two undecillion, two * 101 E Minnehaha Pkwy trillion, two thousand, two hundred and * Minneapolis, MN 55419 ninety three. * http://www.counterpane.com ************************************************************************

2 1

zzzt, scirching
by bambi＠mail.vdocam.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hi sweetie Check out the hottest new site on the internet: http://www.overtheair.com See ya Bambi Warning: You must be over 21 to enter the commercial site referenced in this message. This message is being sent to let interested consumers know of the availability of this site to paying adult customers only. We hope to improve our future communications with your help. If you do not wish, for any reason, to continue to be on the e-mail distribution list that resulted in this message being sent to you, simply send an e-mail to delete(a)mail.exoticbabes4u.com with your e-mail address and the message "Please remove me from your e-mail distribution list." Thank you.

1 0

Re: Crypto moves forward: Commerce Dept panel and SAFE markup
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:13 AM 4/25/97 -0700, Ernest Hua wrote: >Let's let the legislative process (whatever you think of it) take its >course. I'll be happy even if they sneak some screwy secret committee >on the final bill, as long as we are not subject to that committee or >any other governmental body just because we allow ftp of C source code >by our off-shore friends. I think this is a dangerous position to take... make that fatal. The code is already being ftp'ed out of the US. The law would gain you little. But the new restrictions/enhanced penalties, which will inevitably be included in any crypto bill that might become law, will set us back severely. Personally, I hope that none of the crypto bills pending gets passed. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

Staale & Elm
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Howdy :) 1. Does anybody know, what happened to the International PGP-Homepage (http//www.ifi.uio.no/PGP/)? It comes up as "Link not found" (?!) Also Staales personal page (http://www.ifi.uio.no/~staalesc/) seems to be gone... 2. A friend of mine is using Linux and Elm. I recently got her to use PGP, but the poor thing does everything manually via command lines. Can anybody recommend some good front-end's available for Linux-Elm? Ciao Harka /*************************************************************/ /* This user supports FREE SPEECH ONLINE ...more info at */ /* and PRIVATE ONLINE COMMUNICATIONS! -> http://www.epic.org */ /* E-mail: harka(at)nycmetro.com (PGP-encrypted mail pref'd) */ /* PGP public key available upon request. [KeyID: 04174301] */ /* F-print: FD E4 F8 6D C1 6A 44 F5 28 9C 40 6E B8 94 78 E8 */ /*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*/ /* May there be peace in this world, may all anger dissolve */ /* and may all living beings find the way to happiness... */ /*************************************************************/ ... Want to use PGP? --> http://bureau42.base.org/public/pgpsteps.txt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBM2JpPTltEBIEF0MBAQGnHwf9FEKh2mDV3xLhfeCX4UG823cB34qXyEl5 zyh2OeVwN8U21H2Vq09vv0OMKR4ObLRRA6xKRtQgRsSDZUEnsWvfp+O5tD7MRlvo CWH+TbPufzYsLXs6HtGVU6i8ImvN75WY7VuE1+cyYCzscR8M2l0wGlNGdnhvPg0X HQ7EZsLbcppdq8G73jBpoviLWxWD5JjjTmEbBg2yMI8stx84WwzcYy/LGj9nTc0t J4jFUcvT4RDWwWveiGY4vHrAe2338VQARmBDpsItAaWDYbMU7TJQoJ8OF73/iYoJ tRg3S0cuUFwzvJPGpvWEsDJHOlsQGg06WjVSgRfxeNaeEK5w3bOthA== =rDLZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

6 7

International PGP page
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hmm, now it's back again...strange. Ciao Harka -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBM2JqqzltEBIEF0MBAQHIpwf/U5SJoAkWezR046gMqddmsSCA28sDzJiD 5kJmCkgSq8qhnr79jOtdk8uvHailW++Xx/kDtvXkk8YpmJV1ALaSdrPTuN+TCnGS xx0aDm2ju5FuUdzeP0zcp6UJPAKZgmvy5tEue5j47mxzN/iBqzxW9m409ovJWWVs fWk+/Ga+LlbMKwE0pqV83GVbaVkEiIu/ZfmwIHLf8q/Y2YFpEMEM+AgYKbX+RZJd +jT4s35CdXUP0ia1FepfuLHnxf/mtVJTLqiZhd3bErKxS9XeHUjufh7jcLes2izl cziaUk9LnWoUg9wdbnXzkyMmAVd48quPxU3QOpfx16aUPa+oTanYig== =+nsL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

>>> 9.9 LONG DISTANCE <<<
by CALL＠TOLL.FREE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

================================= C A L L T O L L F R E E N O W !!! ================================= >>> 9.9 CENTS LONG DISTANCE <<< >>> 9.9 CENTS 800/888 USAGE <<< >>> SUPER LOW INTERNATIONAL RATES <<< >>> TOLL FREE VOICEMAIL <<< ================================= F I N A N C I A L F R E E D O M ================================= >>> FINALLY: A risk free way to build a LARGE, secure, long term residual income. EARN money on THOUSANDS of other people's LONG DISTANCE telephone bills by simply sharing a TOLL FREE 888# with others <<< ================================= TOLL FREE 24 Hour Recorded Information & Registration Hotline ================================= >>> 1-888-324-3245 <<< >>> Sponsor # SH3333777 <<< ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ We realize that not everyone may enjoy hearing about financial savings or business opportunities... For Permanent REMOVAL and DELETION of your email address from future mailings hit REPLY, then SEND. <9.9longdistance(a)usa.net> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

1 0

Re: [ADMINISTRATIVIUM] Accounts payable
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Mon, 21 Apr 1997 09:13:49 -0600 (MDT) From: Graham-John Bullers <real(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> To: Huge Cajones Remailer <nobody(a)huge.cajones.com> Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: [ADMINISTRATIVIUM] Accounts payable Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com I think Vulis needs each of us to send ten copies of this back to him. On Mon, 21 Apr 1997, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > Timmy May is a licenced sexual pervert who wears Graham-John Bullers' > underwear. > > . ___ o Timmy May > ^z\/o\ o > ^z/\_~_/ > ' ' > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Graham-John Bullers Modulator of alt.2600.modulated ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ email : real(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca : ab756(a)freenet.toronto.on.ca ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

" A Very IMPORTANT Announcement " !
by Exchange＠CurrencyCartel1.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''' A VERY IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT ''''''''''''''''''''''''' ' Your Future May Depend On it ' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Before you should know what the 'Important Announcement' is, please read the following 'Editorial Excerpts' from some important publications in the U.S.A. New York Times: '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' " In concluding our review of Financial Organizations to effect change in the 90's, special attention should be called to the ' World Currency Cartel ' based in California. Members of this organization are amassing hundreds of millions of dollars in the currency market using a very LEGAL method which has not been divulged to the general public. While their purpose, if any, is not yet known, their presence has most certainly been felt ". ABC Nightly News: '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' "Members of the World Currency Cartel are among the most powerful & wealthiest people in this hemisphere". Dear Friend: More Excerpts later, but first let us give you this Important Announcement: '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' We are glad to announce that for the very first time and for a short time only, the World Currency Cartel will instruct a LIMITED number of people worldwide HOW TO CONVERT $25 INTO ONE HUNDRED OF LEGAL CURRENCY. We will tran- sact the first conversion for you, after that you can easily and quickly do this on your own hundreds or even thousands of times each month, month after month! Take advantage of the SECRET FLAW ! ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' It is even more explosive than we have yet disclosed. While currency does fluctuate daily, we can show you HOW TO CONVERT $99 INTO $588 as many time as you want ! That means YOU WILL BE ABLE TO EXCHANGE $99 AMERICAN LEGAL CURRENCY DOLLARS FOR $580 OF THE SAME, and you can do this AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT, every day, every week , every month!! ALL VERY LEGALLY & EFFORTLESSLY !!! ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' It only takes about 8 to 12 minutes each time you do this. You can do this from your home, office or even while travelling. All you need is an access to any phone line and an address and you can do this from ANY CITY ON THIS EARTH. Again, we must reiterate: '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Anyone can do this and the source is Never-Ending. For as long as the global financial community continues to use different currencies with varying exchange rates, the 'SECRET FLAW' will exist. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' We at the World Currency Cartel would like to see a uniform global currency backed by Gold. But, until then, we will allow a LIMITED number of individuals WORLDWIDE to share in the Unlimited Profits provided for by the world paper currency differentials. We will espouse no more political views nor will we ask you do so. We can say however, that our parent organization 'Diamond International' benefits greatly by the knowledge being shared as we ourselves ALONG WITH YOU benefit likewise. Your main CONCERN, however, will be How you benefit. In a short time with NO investment or training, you will be a Currency Exchange Expert who can make transactions from your home, by telephone or through the mail. NO ONE CAN STOP YOU FROM EARNING HUNDREDS OF ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' THOUSANDS, EVEN MILLIONS EACH YEAR AS LONG AS ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' THE 'SECRET FLAW' EXIST ! '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' The amount of exchange you would do each time is entirely upto you. Working just 2 to 3 hours a week, you can soon join the list of other MILLIONAIRES who does this on a daily basis and many many times a day! The transactions are so simple that a high school kid can do this!! DON'T BELIEVE US, EXPERIENCE IT FOR YOURSELF !!! ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Unlike anyone else, we will assure you great financial freedom and you will add to our quickly growing base of supporters and join the list of Millionaires being made using this SECRET FLAW in the world currency market. ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' DON'T ENVY US, JOIN US TODAY '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' There is a small yearly membership fee of only $30 to cover administrative cost. Your important documents, instructions, contacts name & addresses along with important phone numbers and all other pertinent information will be mailed to you IMMEDIATELY! Once you become a member, you promise to keep all infos Confidential. Should you choose to cancel your membership, you may return all materials within 60 days for refund. IMPORTANT: '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 1.......Write your name & mailing address Very Clearly on a small sheet of paper 2........Below your address, please write your E-MAIL address for the record 3........Below that please write the word 'NEW MEMBER' 3........Attache a CHECK or M.O. for US$30.00 and mail it to: DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL 7510 SUNSET BLVD; SUITE # 334 LOS ANGELES, CA.90046 ( If you are outside U.S.A., please ADD US$ 10 extra for shipping & postage ) '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' No more e-mail enquiries please. We do not have time to reply to individual e-mails anymore! We are busy making money!! Wouldn't you rather be doing the same too? Thank you !!! Here are some more 'Editorial Excerpts' : ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Wall Street Journal: ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' "A discreet group of American & European business people, operating under the guise of World Currency Cartel have recently begun making rumbles in world finance market. While at this time, their game is not completely known, they certainly be watched by those making major moves in the currency contracts". Wall Street Week: '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' " Watch them, monitor them, extract their knowledge and try to become one of them. That is the soundest financial advice I could ever give someone ". National Business Weekly: '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' " While this reporter has been left in the cold as to its method of operation, we have been able to confirm that World Currency Cartel and its members are literally amassing great fortunes overnight". Barons: ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' " Simply put, they (world currency cartel) are the single most powerful financial entity to emerge in this decade ". ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; E N D ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

1 0

[ANNOUNCEMENT] Meet-in-the-middle attack
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim C[rook] May prefers to have sex with little kids because his own penis is like that of a three-year-old. /\ /..\ Tim C[rook] May /_\/_\

2 1

Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Meet-in-the-middle attack
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sun, 27 Apr 1997 From: Graham-John Bullers <real(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Meet-in-the-middle attack Reply-To: Graham-John Bullers <real(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> On Sun, 27 Apr 1997, lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote: I think Vulis needs each of us to send ten copies of this back to him. > Tim C[rook] May prefers to have sex with little kids > because his own penis is like that of Graham-John Bullers. > > /\ > /..\ Tim C[rook] May > /_\/_\ > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Graham-John Bullers Modulator of alt.2600.modulated ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ email : real(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca : ab756(a)freenet.toronto.on.ca ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ http://www.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

No Subject
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: jimbell(a)pacifier.com (Jim Bell) > > > can't have everything OUR way, the FIRST time around. Washington > > I think you misunderstand the situation. The government is in somewhat of a > disadvantage by virtue of the fact that there is relatively little > pro-censorship and anti-encryption legislation. Absent such legislation, Here is where I don't agree on the merits ... 1. Pro-censorship agendas does not need much legislative momentum because it does not take much P.R. on a child-molestation-murder incident on some little caucasian girl from a motherhood-and-apple-pie Small Town, U.S.A. to drum up the sentiments to censor. 2. Anti-encryption has been well guarded by the NSA/CIA/FBI/DoD for a long time using the semi-legitimate veil of national security. In fact, in some senses, there ARE legislative support, even if unconstitutional when evaluated in the bright light of day. The problem is that you'll fight for years JUST TO GET A CHANCE to evaluate the law itself. Yes, some of the current legal battles are on their way there, but it's been a LONG time, and every decision/every appeal takes months to years, and it's clear that the NSA is hoping that in 2 years, they can sign up enough pro-key-recovery companies to make the legal battles moot. 2 years is pretty short compared to the time scales on these battles, and the NSA is counting on just that. To me, the time-to-market is just as important as the purity of the products (the proposed legislations). > the status-quo moves in a relatively free fashion, which is why the > Internet is mostly unregulated today. I don't think anyone will be willing to genuinely export encryption (in a real commercial product) while directly flaunting the NSA's implicit/explicit authority on this matter. Corporations are too concerned with the short term bottom line to care about more long term goals like have freedom to export anything it wants. I already know of several instances at various companies where designs were deliberately altered to NOT give the appearance of designing a product with specific encryption/decryption capabilities, even though that is what the product must support, fundamentally speaking. Therefore, I must conclude that the NSA is definitely winning some battles on their 2 year schedule already. > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> > > The question is: Do we want to give up any domestic freedom in exchange > for a relaxation of export controls? (Congress is, after all, built on > compromises between warring factions.) > > My instinct is to say "No." Let the courts strike down ITAR, EAR, and its > progeny, while we keep our freedoms domestically. I really don't think we are disagreeing here. I would not support any restrictions on domestic usage, nor would I support any restrictions on what non-governmental institutions may use. I still believe we should push for all we can get because that is the way the legistlative process works, and that is the game the other side is playing. However, we shouldn't place unrealistic constraints on our supporting legislators such as taking an "all or nothing" attitude. Even if all we can get is 56-bit or 64-bit export legalization, it is a HUGE chip away from the NSA rock because their "2 years free for key recovery" plan is just that much weaker. I would rather see, of course, 128-bit/168-bit be liberalized, because that would essentially mean that everything is liberalized, because the NSA has been playing this "56-bit is too strong" charade, and losing 128-bit/168-bit is essentially losing their argument, unless they want to risk coming to the security committees admitting that they have lied. > From: Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> > > > Let's let the legislative process (whatever you think of it) take its > > course. I'll be happy even if they sneak some screwy secret committee > > on the final bill, as long as we are not subject to that committee or > > any other governmental body just because we allow ftp of C source code > > I think this is a dangerous position to take... make that fatal. The > code is already being ftp'ed out of the US. The law would gain you > little. Well, we're not talking about the realities of the massive semi-underground activities. We're talking about the U.S. Government, (which often has poor notions/understandings of reality), corporations (which often must obide by the laws and regulations, however poor, crafted by the U.S. Gov.), and genuine consumer applications (which are significantly driven by the products produced by these corporations). > But the new restrictions/enhanced penalties, which will > inevitably be included in any crypto bill that might become law, > will set us back severely. Personally, I hope that none of the > crypto bills pending gets passed. Of course, I don't like any of them, especially if there are still secret committees with very real control written into the legislation. If the NSA/FBI can call up Robert Allen to stall a secure phone product line, they already have enough power outside the legal process that they don't need any real committees to help them out. However, NSA will clearly deny having this level of influence to the security committees, and they will most likely accept the NSA's word. Ern -- Ernest Hua, Software Sanitation Engineer/Chief Cut And Paste Officer Chromatic Research, 615 Tasman Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1707 Phone: 408 752-9375, Fax: 408 752-9301, E-Mail: hua(a)chromatic.com

1 0

Fax Security Program
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The TV show "Computer Chronicles" Saturday featured various comm security products, one of which used a fax encoding system with unusual capabilities to transmit color images, condensed text (say, a 30-page doc encoded on a single fax page) or any other digital data as visual clutter. The hard copy is scanned at the receiving end and the program decodes and decompresses to the original format. A demonstation showed that the clutter-code has error-correction robust enough to overcome any physical damage or defect in the transmittal or output. We missed the name of the product and would appreciate hearing from anyone who did, or who knows of the product.

2 1

Don Wood -- IPG
by Lester Gordon (temp) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Have you seen what the notorious Don Wood of IPG infamy is up to now? He has a new web page up at `http://www.seymourtex.com/newisrael/ni.htm'. You won't believe it..

6 5

Re: "New Israel" (Re: Don Wood -- IPG)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Screwy as the New Israel idea may seem, it's been around a while. There was talk of such a plan in the early 90s to settle Russian Jews in the US Southwest, using decommissioned military bases as new Ellis Islands, kibbutzim, trailer trashheaps. As was eventually done in the Israel (our firm surveyed housing sites for the latter and learned of the alternative US plan then). We were told that the promise of Amer-Indian casino gambling made southwest real estate too attractive to devalue with refugee camps, so the idea was deferred it until the gambling gold rush eased, or a Mid-East conflagration kicked in an emergency relocation plan devised by DoD (no surprise there, DoD contingency-plans the globe).

1 0

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C. May prefers to have sex with little kids because his own penis is like that of a three-year-old. (_) _____ (_) /O O\ Timmy C. May ! I ! ! \___/ ! \_____/

2 1

Mail Two Letters & Earn $15,000 Month !!
by dave＠xxxdoe.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

JUST MAIL TWO LETTERS....AND "Make up to $15,000 in ONE (1) MONTH" RESULTS ARE GUARANTEED! (proof will be sent with order) As unbelievable as it sounds. I have developed an "exclusive information package" that can earn you as much as $15,000 within a "30 day" period. It's a money making discovery that is so powerful, it's guaranteed to produce at least $500 (or more) average cash income PER DAY! by following my simple instructions, or I'll pay you $100 for just giving it a try. Others are doing it - why not you? I'll show you exactly how it's done and provide you with SPECIFIC FORMS AND INFORMATION. You will not be able to believe how amazingly simple this is to do. I know you've been bombarded with ads claiming to make you rich. You've seen them - a guy telling you his tragic life story about being broke, cars being repossessed and living in poverty. Then, as if by magic, his problems are gone and he's standing by a very expensive car (probably isn't even his). Or throwing up wads of money (probably 100 one dollar bills) and telling you about his little secret he has to make you rich beyond your wildest dreams. I know, from personal experience, that most money making plans really don't work in practice. It's a fact that there are very few ways for an average person like myself to easily make big money fast. For years I have searched out and investigated many money making ideas. I've been determined to find the very best, honest methods of getting rich fast. I have bought and tried a number of courses, plans and "How-To" books on making money "easily". I've tried import/export wholesaling, self publishing, mail order catalogs, real estate and stock investments, pyramid schemes, multi-level marketing junk, and many other different mail order methods. I've spent hours of wasted energy trying to find the right one. After spending all that time and a lot of money, I have discovered only one thing for sure - THEY ALL REQUIRE A LOT OF HARD WORK AND TIME (usually 2-6 months to get started) AND MONEY (usually $400 to several thousand dollars up-front). And after that, the profits, if any, were usually very small. I'VE COME ACROSS SOMETHING THAT CAN TOTALLY CHANGE YOUR WAY OF THINKING, YOUR LIFE, AND YOUR INCOME FOR THE BETTER! $15,000 will be sent to you in ONE (1) MONTH GUARANTEED! Very little work, very little investment, and no "products". Forget about work and forget about risk - there is very little of this involved. My program isn't a business or a job; it's a proven money making principle. It's a concept that is so SIMPLE and so INCREDIBLE that it would be hard to make a mistake, even if you tried. I believe in my heart, that this is THE BEST SYSTEM OFFERED IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY. It's the shortest and safest way to make this kind of money that I have ever investigated. And it can be repeated over and over again. HERE'S HOW IT WORKS: MAIL ONLY TWO (2) LETTERS ABOUT EVERY SIX (6) WEEKS - (JUST 16 LETTERS A YEAR!) THAT'S ALL I DO! ANYONE ELSE RECEIVING MY REPORT AND MATERIALS CAN DO IT TOO! 1. Mail one letter about four sentences long to "Business A" (I'll give you the actual letter). They will send back to you a very specific type of information. 2. Put the materials I sent you along with the information from "Business A" into a large envelope, include my instructions and mail it directly to "Business B". They will take care of everything else for you. No work involved on your part. Everything will be carefully disclosed to you in precise detailed steps, clearly, concisely, and in an easy-to-understand manner. I'll send you the facts. Actual working materials, and instructions you need to make money, AT ONCE. Mail just sixteen (16) letters a year and earn up to $180,000 average income per year with this. There is nothing magical about it, it's all "know-how" and anyone, even a high school student, can learn to do this in approximately 30 minutes. You only need to know whom to send the letters to! THAT'S IT - IT'S THAT EXPLOSIVE! And....Guess what? You'll be surprised to learn that both "Business A" and "Business B" can be found in most every city in the United States and Canada. This has got to be the most valuable piece of information that money can buy. No more guesswork, no more hassles....nothing but straight easy income. This technique can be used anywhere, by anyone with a tiny bit of ambition. The money will start coming in directly to your home or office in only a matter of days. EVERY PENNY IS YOURS TO KEEP! It all comes in "cold cash", ready for you to spend right now. It's a specific and definite money-making process that will work for you exactly as it's working for me and several others. In fact, this might be the shortest legal way to make money that has ever been invented. SPEND ONLY TWENTY (20) MINUTES A DAY FOLLOW-UP AT HOME AND DO NOTHING ELSE EXCEPT WATCH THE DOLLARS KEEP COMING IN (INSTEAD OF OUT) FOR A CHANGE! ABSOLUTELY FOOL-PROOF This plan will show you how to take in more money in a day, than you now earn in a week....more money in a month, than you now make per year, and more money in a year, than anyone thought possible. Enjoy your life in a way that most people will only dream about. It would stagger one's imagination, while they are making only a fraction of what you will be making by working only part time, at home. Don't worry, the money is always there and ready - enough to create a new lifestyle that lets you live and work as YOU please, anywhere YOU please. It should not interfere with your present job or family life. (Earn money 24 hours a day without stepping out of your home or apartment!) DOUBLE GUARANTEE! After receiving and implementing the process described in the manual, "Mail Two Letters and Make $15,000 in One Month" for a two year period, you may return it at that time for DOUBLE YOUR MONEY BACK. No Questions Asked! No Hassles! No Delays! Just a prompt refund. TRIPLE FREE BONUS For those people who answered this ad only, we will include, absolutely FREE, our new directory of over 150 firms that use the services of Independent Homeworkers. Many of these firms pay up to $1.00 each just for stuffing envelopes with free postage and supplies. Others offer top pay for mailing letters, assembling catalogs, typing labels, etc. (a $15.00 Value) also FREE, we will include your name and address in our Computer Service which we supply to hundreds of firms that use Homeworkers on a constant basis. They offer top pay and immediate earning. Before long your mailbox will be flooded with homework offers of all kinds (a $15.00 Value). We will also include absolutely FREE our new Mailing List Dealership which pays you 50% Commission from Sales up to $300 each. All three bonuses (Valued at $30.00) are yours FREE just for ordering our program today. $5,000 SPECIAL GUARANTEE If you show me an easier, simpler, and more risk free moneymaking concept that has this much profit potential, I'LL SEND YOU A PERSONAL MONEY ORDER FOR $5,000 (That's Five Thousand Dollars!) Anyone who doesn't believe this system will perform as I say, can pick up an easy $5,000 right here by proving me wrong!! THIS IS THE STRONGEST GUARANTEE YOU WILL EVER SEE! I wouldn't make an offer like this unless I believed this technique works. You will make $15,000 in one month exactly as outlined in my program, $500 average daily profit mailing just sixteen (16) letters a year and doing ONLY 20 MINUTES average follow-up work a day. If you act now, it will be yours at ONLY a cost of $27.95 plus $2.00 shipping and handling. With your permission, I'll RUSH this valuable money producing manual to you at my risk. NOT YOURS. ***************************************************** Print & Mail This Order Form To: Make Checks Payable To: Dave Mustachi P.O. Box 772261 - Dept. S Coral Springs, FL 33077-2261 Okay, send me your entire package "MAIL TWO LETTERS AND MAKE $15,000 IN ONE MONTH". I understand if after receiving and implementing the process described in your manual, I become dissatisfied for any reason, you will honor your money-back guarantee for one full year. On that basis, enclosed is my $27.95 plus $2.00 Shipping & Handling. NAME___________________________________________________ ADDRESS________________________________________________ CITY______________________STATE_____________ZIP________ EMAIL ADDRESS_________________________________________ **************************************************** OR PLEASE PASTE YOUR CHECK HERE (If you fax a check, there is no need for you to send the original check by mail. We will draft up a new check, with the exact information from your original check that you faxed to us) Please fax the above order form and check to: 1-954-255-3713.

1 0

MAKE BIG REPUTATION CAPITAL !!!
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello Mr. C. Punk, We all get junk email promising instant riches if we send away our hard-earned dollars to a total stranger who promises us outrageous returns on our investment. So why aren't we all rich beyond our wildest dreams? The answer is simple -- GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE WITH THE FREE MARKET! The Federal Treasury only prints so much hard currency, thus limiting the amount of available funds for the citizens to invest in Multi-Level Marketing schemes. Therefore, in the long run, all of these efforts are doomed to failure. Now, however, thanks to the cutting edge technology of Reputation Capital Enterprises, Inc., all government interference has been bypassed and citizens such as yourself can now be offered a MLM OPPORTUNITY which is unlimited in scope. Now you can increase your REPUTATION CAPITAL by leaps and bounds, by simply investing a small portion of it in this UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY, which is initially being offered to only those few individuals who already have a modicum of RC to invest. Just listen to what a few select individuals have to say about how the REPUTATION CAPITAL MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING SCHEME has changed their lives for the better: Jim Bell: "My reputation capital had sunk so low that even when I was persecuted by the government, I didn't get any support from my fellow anarchists. "They all said I was a fucking 'loon' and tried to distance themselves from me, so that my problems wouldn't reflect badly on themselves. "Now, thanks to the RC MLM SCHEME, my Reputation Capital has increased to such a degree that the IRS tells me they'll just trust me to file proper returns in the future, even if I claim large rebates, and my fellow cypherpunks are fighting over who will get to provide me with free lodging, food, and alcoholic beverages during my visit to the Bay Area cypherpunks meetings." Rapid Wombat: "It's not easy being a marsupial. When you can't walk upright, people tend to discount your thoughts and opinions, no matter how well you present them. "Thanks to the RC MLM SCHEME, however, I now have people from around the world who consult me as to what kind of wine goes with insects and small larvae." Dr. Dimitri Vulis KOTM: "I was once reviled by all -- my posts were canceled from Usenet, I was being unsubscribed from mailing lists, and my ASCII art was sent to the trash bin without a second thought. "Thanks to the RC MLM SCHEME my gratuitous insults are now considered a badge of honor, and I receive constant requests for digitally signed ASCII art works, which are now receiving recognition as a reputable art form. "I even receive private email from Gilmore <spit> and Sameer <fart>, begging me to let them suck my cock." Tim C. May: "Of course, I wrote about this back in the early '50's, before many of you were even born. That's why I have so goddamn much Reputation Capital piled up in my basement, next to the boxes of AK-47's. "If you took advantage of the RC MLM SCHEME, then you, too, could write long, rambling posts to the cypherpunks list going on endlessly about syphlitic philosophers like Nietzsche, and nobody would dare question whether the post was off-topic." Kent Crispin: "I don't have a brain in my head, and I live in an intellectual ivory tower where I can comfortably avoid any issues which have to do with the niggardly details of real life. "Thanks to the RC MLM SCHEME, however, my Reputation Capital has soared so high that people respond to my posts as if I really had a brain and my posts contained sufficient content that they were actually worth replying to." ACT TODAY, and you can increase your REPUTATION CAPITAL to the point where people will take your ideas, no matter how half-baked they are, seriously, and respond to your posts as if you weren't just another hopeless loser with too much time on his or her hands, trying desperately to act as if your ideas and opinions are worthy of reading, let alone considering. To begin your journey to REPUTATION CAPITAL RICHES, just send an email to the addresses below, signifying that you consider this person to be a recognized, hallowed authority on everything under the sun, and some things that aren't. Within days, you will receive a plentiful plethora of pithy episticles, deeming you to be a person of consummate reputation, worthy of the utmost respect for your ideas and opinions. #1 - alec(a)abraxis.com #2 - aga(a)dhp.com #3 - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com Reputation Monger

1 0

PATHS: Internet Taxation (Wednesday May 7, 4:15 pm) (fwd)
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FYI for SF Bay Aryans. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY HORIZONS SEMINAR INTERNET TAXATION: ECONOMICS, TECHNOLOGY AND LAW CHARLES McLURE, Jr. HOOVER INSTITUTION Wednesday, May 7, 1997, 4:15 pm Manning Faculty Lounge, Stanford Law School (RSVP Susan French, SLTPC(a)forsythe.stanford.edu, or 723-0981) Should electronic commerce be taxed, and how? What should be taxed, income, sales, or both? Who should tax, the federal government, states, or both? Should a special excise tax be imposed on selected aspects of electronic commerce? Is Internet taxation feasible, and how? Answering these and similar questions requires agreement on the appropriate economic objectives of Internet taxation combined with an understanding of the dynamic interplay between technological and legal forces. A draft paper will be available from http://www-techlaw.stanford.edu after May 2. Charles E. McLure, Jr., a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, specializes in the economics of taxation and tax reform. He has served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Analysis, a senior economist on the staff of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, vice president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a tax policy consultant to various countries, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the United Nations. Policy and Technology Horizons Seminars (PATHS) examine technological developments that may require a fundamental re-examination of policy, law, and regulation. Sponsored by the Stanford Law and Technology Policy Center, PATHS help identify critical policy issues in time for intelligent policymaking.

2 1

TV Documentary "Crypto Wars" ON AIR in Japan
by Sh.Hanabusa 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TV Documentary "CRYPTO WARS" (60min) On air at 8pm Apr 28th (only in Japan) ------------------------------------------ Cast; Sameer Parekh / C2NET Ian Goldberg Tim May Bill Stewart Hugh Daniel Vince Cate Phil Zimmermann / PGP Inc. Eric Schmidt / Sun Microsystems Jeff Treuhaft / Netscape Communications Stewart Baker Dorothy Denning William Reinsh / Commerce Dept. -------------------------------------------- Contents; What is the cypherpunks? RSA Conference US Government's Export Controls Ian Goldberg's 40bit RC5 crack What is the NSA? Feb. Cypherpunks Meeting at Stanford PGP 1.0 Silicon Valley vs US Government Strategy of the "C2 Net" Discussion about "Key Recovery" Financial Cryptography Conference in Anguilla ---------------------------------------------- Special thanks for your cooperations _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ Shuichiro Hanabusa (hanabusa(a)bnn-net.or.jp) Producer/ Special Programs NHK Enterprises 21 Inc. Location: Tokyo/ Japan _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/

1 0

Textual Analysis of Spam
by Mark Grant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm currently writing a spam-filter and bouncing messages based on header information and keyword counts. This gets about 80% of the spam, but also gives about 1% false positives. Has anyone done any more sophisticated analysis of spam text than this? I can't find anything on the Web. Mark

1 0