December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Would the anonymous person(s) please...
by The Spectre 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed May 14 11:12:10 1997 > Would all those anonymous remailing people with a flame tendency, > please flame the person of your attacks, and don't send this bullshit > to the list? Thanks... > What would be the point.. the only person you can be *sure* doesn't care about these messages is the mark. - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQENAzM2vJwAAAEH/1uuDgh1udD+DbU9ies8Lst3j7bmlM+m+aN0gVwerfx+uA14 AG6RDZwwCLwCZYxh0/AizW1b25nHs5XDFW7QIVo1/agtbyz3rt7plcp3wi+rXPxo zFPgILegG2k81mHYIYVJ1g9bEExVGsNc7GMthkaOjPL2VYirQPRtAa4ZZc6JuCLH I85xIcwuLppYajUU4WMMf4yz+5w1WtTlHdL9+ec6BHoF+fOhsF/8DMd5nveFl0aM G52t+z6okMw9vFjLbEtj0BbDRsMjRJNM5uFQWzU+nPEaUzVP+MySe/yrjR2P3dZa UKjpG3Er7U4DV7rb8mE20Wet10jJoALjG8yMZrUABRG0HVRoZSBTcGVjdHJlIDxz cGVjdHJlQG5hYy5uZXQ+iQEVAwUQM0qy66AC4xvMjGa1AQGNLAf/QY5SyC/jybOQ asYfNqhPFip0gZwUutOOgPdyrEsXoxFOWJ9OG95dzvNJ3of22zh4RLusUt5NT7lB DFUKiP4aQsNf5XmW+qk/R1nmqyO/XHAAAdIos2SGsYew2d3JatIlFZIQ+vMkEOC0 +oPotz7effhkDKeYl+Qdla9eZ1C47Be2NrA1sH26jKYhCob6VnAK+zAin8ZPEnb0 XEKQTMVdE2ehv2Q8PxygZhDI0L6sM6EgguvDWjJuGN4bIhxh22dAyNRJ7CVQsqwV rj4TtkAuqUb0nyQvD2xUeJcB/O+1LCH7oFBE4EG1qEIl7asVjEURrfej7OwxRrA0 J0Lc5tZToA== =tS4W - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBM3nWTaAC4xvMjGa1AQHPLAf+PrpiMXm4xG3Ex2rTiowGqXL5ODizBaQB IL+5Q6wTLjlpWJf5OFNX2YvLhsqWS868vLRq9xDsTTsYskhyj9bFfCR7izXq0TJu ROFRKqo0F9iXYJt0pERBwHlfvdZ8wRfJMyql+FQSV5yiHyguWWuIvkalx695M992 bdGMq9WhKmlfFG2MvP8Wye478XlllYZzzQJ8lxnMlWGbekuQs+Ciduvqe9r0dKj2 UcrLdFOTwECBVv8QsTwY8Kc+RYNwuXSxTwRxrrs285b3TX8s+hhUPeoFyjbpPdG4 D9t1AgD1+CJUee4HIZQAy2vmUrUJZvNAxTlQoVoXEHjeGOd1AJPB/Q== =zYWb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Anonymity and cowardice
by The Spectre 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed May 14 11:34:45 1997 > The time per year it takes for me to delete all these messages is about > the same as the amount of time it took me to reply to your previous > message plus the amount of time it will now take me to compose this > reply. All back of the envelope, of course. All by choice, which is what we're talking about here.. > I've been on this list for 18 months and have seen plenty of worthwhile > posts from remailers. You're entitled to your opinion, but I strongly > disagree. I guess I'll just never know.. > So you're calling John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton > cowards > (anonymous authors of the Federalist Papers)? Many others have > (also used > anonymity to further the cause of liberty. I doubt your real > name is "The Spectre" yet that is the name under which you are posting. > Are you calling yourself a coward? The difference in all these cases (save mine) is that the people you listed would have been persecuted, if not prosecuted, for their actions. Now people are hiding out of fear and paranoia of something that in most cases doesn't exist. The people you mentioned never had to deal with this level of abuse, either. In my case, it's simply the name i've old my email package to append to my messages. Anyone who really wants to can look me up at any time. - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQENAzM2vJwAAAEH/1uuDgh1udD+DbU9ies8Lst3j7bmlM+m+aN0gVwerfx+uA14 AG6RDZwwCLwCZYxh0/AizW1b25nHs5XDFW7QIVo1/agtbyz3rt7plcp3wi+rXPxo zFPgILegG2k81mHYIYVJ1g9bEExVGsNc7GMthkaOjPL2VYirQPRtAa4ZZc6JuCLH I85xIcwuLppYajUU4WMMf4yz+5w1WtTlHdL9+ec6BHoF+fOhsF/8DMd5nveFl0aM G52t+z6okMw9vFjLbEtj0BbDRsMjRJNM5uFQWzU+nPEaUzVP+MySe/yrjR2P3dZa UKjpG3Er7U4DV7rb8mE20Wet10jJoALjG8yMZrUABRG0HVRoZSBTcGVjdHJlIDxz cGVjdHJlQG5hYy5uZXQ+iQEVAwUQM0qy66AC4xvMjGa1AQGNLAf/QY5SyC/jybOQ asYfNqhPFip0gZwUutOOgPdyrEsXoxFOWJ9OG95dzvNJ3of22zh4RLusUt5NT7lB DFUKiP4aQsNf5XmW+qk/R1nmqyO/XHAAAdIos2SGsYew2d3JatIlFZIQ+vMkEOC0 +oPotz7effhkDKeYl+Qdla9eZ1C47Be2NrA1sH26jKYhCob6VnAK+zAin8ZPEnb0 XEKQTMVdE2ehv2Q8PxygZhDI0L6sM6EgguvDWjJuGN4bIhxh22dAyNRJ7CVQsqwV rj4TtkAuqUb0nyQvD2xUeJcB/O+1LCH7oFBE4EG1qEIl7asVjEURrfej7OwxRrA0 J0Lc5tZToA== =tS4W - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBM3nbmqAC4xvMjGa1AQHjLAf/QDq9v0zAjQhTLkTC773R6pN3a13z54s+ fsx4wYgg5zsTQhiwAsSs/0ROKQukLY660Yk4dZR8dbhoJKJmWpGKpuiOReP/XDPT jTijALMx31FGd8YdcSJORGPinHeU3MEZ8/ZklSUx2hbtS6/84lGzjZC93sT3xVfa ZA5QY/Z2lv9IS75rOQtIyBSublc7Un/AAs72rqjmq6rXzSp8UCtasAhqPgADSEgu 4A+VAzr8Jfq4mtwhx2W1W6amNTu0oKRSy+PNdCmrkD39+87/CsepDZ+OdnRK/Ebu 7bE7wA1ea6rw6mZg9Msje2M4p58vvomE4Q52iSkreD7CK7d325Baug== =SI22 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

SLASH YOUR LONG DISTANCE PHONE COST TO 7.9c PER MINUTE !
by usa＠quantcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friend, I'll get straight to the astonishing point: A new technology breakthrough and a 10-year-old manufacturing giant now make it possible for you to slash your phone bills and build your own money-making business with: * 7.9¢ minute flat rate long distance, 24 hrs. 7 days (going lower soon!) * 6-second billing * Lower in-state rates than you're now paying (some states 50% less) * Shockingly low international rates * 11.9¢ phonecards, plunging to 9.9¢ soon! * Rechargeable 15.9¢/min cards you can give away as premiums & earn over 18% when they activate (your cost 15 cents ea.) * Phonecard dispensing machines * Totally affordable Advanced Virtual Office package coming soon (call waiting/forwarding, voicemail, 800#, paging, etc. etc.) * Internet * Low-cost cellular rates coming soon Most generous commissions and fairest marketing plan give you long-term residual income. How much depends only on you! This program is backed by one of the most solid, stable, experienced and reputable network marketing organizations you could ever hope to be associated with. This is BIG, it's REAL, it's ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE, it's sweeping the nation and it's GROUND FLOOR NOW. Nothing compares, no matter what you may have heard. Representatives are joining by the tens of thousands and 20 million customers are expected this year alone! Get in NOW before somebody else grabs all your contacts. Get everything you need to know by simply taking: STEP 1: Get Fax-on-Demand info & forms at 415-273-3922 STEP 2: Call 206-654-4470 for 24-hr. recorded instructions If you received this message in error, please accept our apology, and type REMOVE in the subject header. Thank You.

1 0

update.321 (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From physnews(a)aip.org Wed May 14 13:21:46 1997 Date: Wed, 14 May 97 10:24:01 EDT From: physnews(a)aip.org (AIP listserver) Message-Id: <9705141424.AA09540(a)aip.org> To: physnews-mailing(a)aip.org Subject: update.321 PHYSICS NEWS UPDATE The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Physics News Number 321 May 13, 1997 by Phillip F. Schewe and Ben Stein A PHOTON CONVEYOR BELT has been created using sound waves and lasers, bringing about a new method for processing and storing light signals on a chip. In some opto-electronic devices it is desirable to delay or store an optically-encoded message by dispatching it down kilometer-long fiber cul-de-sacs. In a device developed at the University of Munich, the delay can be accomplished more compactly by first converting the light into a splash of excitons (electron-hole pairs) which propagate at a more leisurely pace, the electrons and holes surfing along on different parts of a guiding acoustic wave. Later the electron-hole pairs recombine into photons, which are read out at the other end of the sample. In effect the signal has been converted from a speed-of- light wave into a speed-of-sound wave, and back again. This technique is also a way of prolonging the lifetime of excitons, which typically live for mere nanoseconds before recombining; in this experiment they have now been preserved for microseconds. (C. Rocke et al., Physical Review Letters, 19 May 1997; contact Achim Wixforth, Achim.Wixforth @physik.uni-muenchen.de; animation at www.aip.org/physnews/graphics) THE QUANTUM WAVEFUNCTION OF A MATTER WAVE, the complete mathematical description of a quantum system, has been experimentally reconstructed for the first time. Trapping a single beryllium ion in electric fields, Dietrich Leibfried and his colleagues at NIST created a state in which the ion has exactly one quantum of vibrational energy. Determining the wavefunction, which contains all the knowable information about this system, is difficult because the uncertainty principle says that measuring its position alters its momentum and vice versa. But by preparing the same quantum state 500,000 times and making a different measurement each time, the researchers sidestepped this limitation and reconstructed piecemeal the probability for the ion to have certain values of position and momentum. Known as the Wigner function, this "quasiprobability" distribution can be mathematically transformed into an average quantum wavefunction for the system which, the researchers argue, is nearly identical to the actual wavefunction. The NIST researchers were the first to measure negative Wigner function values for certain coordinates of position and momentum--something that can only happen for quantum systems; this reflects the fact that the system can exist in many states simultaneously. (Physical Review Letters, 18 November 1996.) Subsequently, physicists at the University of Konstanz in Germany measured the Wigner function of a matter wave traveling in free space--a helium atom traversing a pair of slits. (Nature, 13 March; also Science News, March 15.) PHYSICISTS ARE 46 YEARS OLD AND MAKE $65,000 A YEAR. These are median values for a PhD physicist in the U.S. in 1996. Those who work at federal labs made the most (median $78,500), even more than in industry (median $77,000); those at 4-year colleges made the least, with a median of $49,200. Geographically, median salaries ranged from $70,000 (Pacific states) to $56,200 (East South Central). New PhD's earn $31,000 at universties and $39,600 at federal labs. Salaries for female physicists who have earned the PhD in the past 10 years are comparable to salaries for male physicists with similar experience ("Society Membership Survey: Salaries 1996," a report issued in April by the AIP Education and Employment Statistics Division; contact Ray Chu, rchu(a)aip.org)

1 0

Re: Just Say "No" to Congress
by geeman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think I'd like to have some voice in who steps up to the bar to fill the power vacuum, though, after the rapid oxidation within the Beltway. At 09:13 AM 5/14/97 -0800, Tim May wrote: >At 9:14 PM -0800 5/13/97, Lucky Green wrote: >>At 12:19 PM 5/11/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>>You might remember I wrote recently about the DoJ report released this >>>month that calls for new legislation to ban bomb-making info online. Now >>>Feinstein's office tells me she's going to introduce a bill. >> >>Feinswine never saw a gun/mind control bill she didn't like. She is an >>ultra fascist that rose to power thanks to the yellow dog Bay Area voters. >> > >Feinswine/Swinestein is the most despicable of all the politicians in >Congress. (This is not just ideology speaking...her usual-ally Barbara >Boxer is much less swinish, and even has some independent thoughts. I can't >see I often agree with Boxer, but she's not the Big Sister automaton that >Swinestein is.) > >We're basically under assault from all directions. The bozos in Congress >and state governments are spinning out new laws and obscure regulations >faster than we can react...and of course they're using our money to >generate these laws and lobby for them. Further, a mostly-brainwashed >Washington media population is surprising uncritical of these blizzard >drifts of new laws. > >As others have noted, recently James Donald, the lawmakers play the "good >cop, bad cop" game very well. Crypto becomes exportable (good cop), but >only if keys are given to the government (bad cop). Speech is ostensibly >protected by new laws, but new provisions criminalize racist, homophobic, >disrespectful, hurtful, offensive, or unpopular opinions. > >The "there ought to be a law" crowd is in high gear. > >The only proper rebuttal is to reject their view that more laws will fix >the societal ills they perceive. > >Attempting to "work with them" only feeds the good cop/bad cop system, as >the SAFE and Pro-CODE bills show. > >Removing the Washington area as a malignant tumor requiring drastic surgery >remains an option. > >--Tim May > >There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. >Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." > > > > > >

1 0

Re: Quadratic Residue: Vulis
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Demento Vulis's mother attempted to pro-choice the unwanted little bastard by fishing with a coat hanger in her giant cunt, but failed miserably to pull the rabbit and succeeded only in scraping out the contents of little Demento's fetal cranium (not much to begin with). (_) _____ (_) /O O\ The Proctologist Demento Vulis ! I ! ! \___/ ! \_____/

1 0

Re: Public Key Break Paper
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote: >As a meta-point any securirty person knows that employees and >ex-employees are the most serious security risks. Its not exactly >unknown for someone to go nuts and then come out with loony >paranoid theories. > >This may not be the case in this instance but its a good idea not >to start seeing black helicopters around every corner... "All cryptologists are rightly paranoid, they break the rules of the game and lie to hide how it's done." -- Anonymous. For what it's worth, it was Sandia who disclosed Payne's public key break paper, not him. He's suing SNL for privacy violations. His suit of DoE and NSA is about being fired for refusing to carry out illegal work which craven colleagues jumped to do. William Payne could be the Bellwether of spilling the dark national lab secrets unless, ahem, he gets his million dollar settlement. I say good luck to him and the others fighting the secret-hoaders. Payne's dispute with Sandia and NSA shows once again how the gatekeepers of top secrets manipulate those who work on classified projects: Lure the best and brightest with flattering invitations to join prestigous secret work. Require high-penalty NDAs for participation. Invite to work on repugnant projects, and if refused, fire for insubordination or other pretext ("displeasing the customer" or "to protect national security"). Then, destroy careers by precluding ever again working on classified projects. Finally, stigmatize the victim and publicize to frighten other workers into subservience. This entrapment into fearful servitude happens repeatedly in high affairs of state: Oppenheimer, Snepp, McGee, Halperin, and so on. There are dozens of current pending cases at DoE, CIA, NSA and the like in the US, and many more in other countries. To be sure, wisely obedient government workers will never have to cry "help me, my former colleagues are attacking, I did nothing wrong." Still, it seems that there must be ritual sacrifices of the innocent, as Shirley Jackson wrote in "The Lottery," to expatiate collective guilt, any innocent will do -- "for all are equally guilty," so the gods and secret-keepers hyper- guiltily smirk. Who's next to exaptiate the guilt of the mega death national and university labs? Surely not Hallam-Baker or Crisp? Or, as Tim suggests, how about sacrificing the secret labs (and black-chip fabs)? There's a bill before Congress to redo the NLs, but why dawdle when there's a surefire crypto-lottery.

1 0

RE: RSA, PGP IN LEGAL FLAP OVER ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGY
by Chris DiBona 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't pretend to be patent law knowledgeable, but I'll try to address this. While pure mathematics is unpatentable, the inventions based on it are not. Remembering you can't get patents on ideas, only inventions, I decided to go and check out the RSA patent and see why it has held up and been allowed renewal (no kidding. Think of all the trouble that could have been saved if renewal had been denied!) This first thing I noticed is that not only is RSA patented, but so is Stego, under patent 5613004. The RSA patent is abstracted and here it is: ABSTRACT: A cryptographic communications system and method. The system includes a communications channel coupled to at least one terminal having an encoding device and to at least one terminal having a decoding device. A message-to-be-transferred is enciphered to ciphertext at the encoding terminal by first encoding the message as a number M in a predetermined set, and then raising that number to a first predetermined power (associated with the intended receiver) and finally computing the remainder, or residue, C, when the exponentiated number is divided by the product of two predetermined prime numbers (associated with the intended receiver). The residue C is the ciphertext. The ciphertext is deciphered to the original message at the decoding terminal in a similar manner by raising the ciphertext to a second predetermined power (associated with the intended receiver), and then computing the residue, M', when the exponentiated ciphertext is divided by the product of the two predetermined prime numbers associated with the intended receiver. The residue M' corresponds to the original encoded message M. For the actual details of the patent go to IBM's patent server: http://patent.womplex.ibm.com/details?patent_number=4405829 Notice how careful they were to title it a "System" and a "Method". It is that they are patenting. I think if someone had good enough lawyers, they could probably challenge this patent using prior art claims, but what the hell do I know. I'm thinking however that the Secure Telephone Units had a dual key system, and were introduced by AT&T long before the RSA patent was granted, but I'm not sure. So indeed they are patenting the method of using the mathmatics. Which is thier invention, which is why (IMO) they were granted the patent. I wish that they hadn't been able to get it renewed. It would have been nice to see how RSA would do competing thier software libraries against alternative competitors. Ah well, guess we'll have to wait another 17 years. Too bad. Chris DiBona -----Original Message----- At 19:47 5/13/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 07:11:48PM -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >> However, I've been waiting many years for some patent-law-knowledgeable >> person to explain why mathematics, which was widely seen as being absolutely >> unpatentable prior to the invention of public-key cryptography, suddenly >> became patentable just in time for RSA, etc. >> >> Until I hear such an explanation, I _DO_ begrudge RSA and others that "right." > >Wow! I agree with you! Sit down until the feeling goes away. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Videocrypt/Videocrypt2 any cryptanalytic results?
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has any progress been made in cryptanalysing the algorithms used in the european Videocrypt and Videocrypt2 standards used to encrypt satellite broadcasts? Particularly, is there any information I can obtain about the protocols, the data communicated between the decoder and card, and the algorithm itself. I am looking at the possibility of a new version of the "season" card simulator software created some time ago, which is now obselete, which used to be used against videocrypt broadcasts...

2 1

Re: Public Key Break Paper
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > > >I just took a brief look at it, (thanks for forwarding, Lucky), > >and it's pure crap-ola. > > As a meta-point any securirty person knows that employees and > ex-employees are the most serious security risks. Its not exactly > unknown for someone to go nuts and then come out with loony > paranoid theories. Whenever I see the dying embers of the spam debate being blown to life (along with similar non-issues), I wonder what the disinfo artists are trying to distract me from. I don't have to wonder too hard, however, since I can always count on the usual suspects to step forward and pooh-paah whatever they don't want anyone to look at too closely. Anything Phill casts aspersions on has to be worth checking out: http://jya.com/snlhit.htm TrafficMonger

2 1

Kill a Fag, Go to Congress / Was--Re: Disinformation in L.A.
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tom Allard wrote: > > Didn't her boss's murderer walk on the charge by using the defence > > that he ate too many Twinkies? > > No political intrigue here... > > That was the defense, yes. Dan White was a former cop and treated like a > hero by fellow cops. The prosecution never really challenged the Twinkie > defense, nor did they bring up politics or homophobia as motives. With a > prosecution like that, who needs a defense? I remember that it was seen as being a message to the gay community that they were getting too "uppity" for their own good. (I wonder how they got that idea? <former cop kills a queer, gets treated like a hero, prosecuters play with Little Peter while he gets off for eating too many Twinkies, and Swinestein is waiting in the wings to do an "LBJ">.) The government is a lot like the Mob--other politicians can't really trust you until you've whacked somebody and they have it to hold over your head so that you'll play along. SwineMonger

1 0

HUGE NEW PROFITS FROM THE NET!
by helpers＠prep.future.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// This is a one time mailing. Send Remove Requests to: drdan(a)mail-response.com with REMOVE in the SUBJECT field so that you will be removed from a master list. Sorry for inconveniencing you. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// A NATIONAL ON-LINE CLASSIFIED AD SERVICE JUST STARTED!! * FANTASTIC COMPENSATION WITH SEVERAL PEOPLE ALREADY MAKING $2000 A DAY! * FANTASTIC FUTURE--- WILL MAKE THE NEWSPAPER CLASSIFIED AD INDUSTRY OBSOLETE! * PROGRAM IS ONLY 3 WEEKS OLD! * A STABLE DEBT-FREE MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR CORPORATION! * SECURE YOUR ZIP CODE AND EARN A LIFETIME RESIDUAL INCOME! * WORLDWIDE! YOU CAN MARKET LOCALLY, NATIONALLY OR TO OTHER COUNTRIES! ************************************************************** ********************** **************************************** CALL 1-415-273-3933 TO HEAR HOW IT IS POSSIBLE! CALL 1-415-272-3934 TO GET THE FAX ON DEMAND! CALL 1-510-549-8088 24 HOURS TO SIGN UP! OR Send Email to: drdan(a)mail-response.com With NAME AND PHONE # FOR A FREE REPORT!

1 0

Re: The War is Underway
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- \At 10:44 AM 5/10/97 -0800, Tim May wrote: >This is the "race to the fork in the road" I have long talked about. The >future will be pulled between two attractors, with essentially no middle >ground >At one side lies a surveillance state >At the other side lies crypto anarchy Except that their branch of the "fork" is illusory. It depends on public support and physical powers they lack. The reason that I'm a technoptimist is *not* because I think that modern technology is an all-powerful mechanism which has shattered the control capabilities of the coercive state apparatus. The really beautiful thing is that today's technology is merely piling onto a pre-existing trend which favored individual choice. Things were already trending towards markets and self government long before crypto and the Internet hit the front pages. Even mainframe computers helped. If you look at the graphs, you'll see that computers started forcing institutional downsizing as early as the late '60s in the U.S. and Britain. Mechanical technology and the wealth it produced was sufficient to get things going. Since the Second World War, people have been getting wealthier and hence more powerful. First here in America and later spreading throughout the worlds like a health-giving virus. Remember, it's not just technology. If I can move and trade in a very efficient market, I have a lot more power than someone with my same level of wealth in a primitive society with limited capabilities. Cheap radios (the first micro technology product) and jet engines helped push things along as much as anything. The slow development of market institutions which, today, give individuals the power to buy, sell, and lease almost any good or service eventually reached a critical point as well. Rich people are *much* harder to push around than poor people. (If you push them too much, they just leave.) So factories produced wealth which produced power which automatically increased individual choice. You will note that the 60's happened, for example. As time went on, markets spread, tyranny contracted and people became harder and harder to control (for good or ill). Pile crypto and the Net onto this trend, and you get an accelerated beneficial movement towards enhanced personal choice. Obviously, "the generation that was born into bondage in Egypt cannot enter the Promised Land." They have to die off before the changes can become obvious to all. The Net can help in this by changing our cultural and social environment so much that it allows us to, in the words of yet another Timothy, "Metaprogram the human biocomputer." I must say, however, that I find it hard to believe that other people can't see the amazing progress that we've made in the last decade. The utter destruction of totalitarian communism, the transformation of Latin America from 26 dictatorships and 1 democracy a few years ago to 26 (more or less) democracies and 1 dictatorship today, the liberation of the Forex markets, the ideological dominance of market liberalism, the Death of the PTT communications monopolies, the deregulation of transportation, the lowering of trade barriers, etc. Note that last month, Mongolia became the first country since the dawn of the nation state to abolish all tarrifs and quotas. Now if you can just get to it, you can trade freely. The control capabilities of the government depend on the attitude of the people. If they support the government or are intimidated by it, they will obey. Today, support for most OECD governments is at historic lows. Cynicism about government policies is widespread. And the simple ignoring of rules and regs is "out of control." DCF "You don't have to be nice to nation states you meet on the way up if you're not coming back down." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBM3os3YVO4r4sgSPhAQHTRgQAvXFT8D+v2rpRe1d6bev87ODWCm4Pr1HS 0akwfOIBdGcCIWzRVRywTe1uBkMlnP2rXg819q+LLMkLK2J0Oma0zCPbCOqG8OSd aChGNuLq1106YjRPGXsbpKOBugbpW5AgLXUlUXtwjMBJzoZ9GNRCQDJlGCHuO0Q3 gDVw2CRSW6A= =33tc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Rwanda and "anarchy"
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 08:21:13PM -0800, Tim May wrote: > > At 6:34 PM -0800 5/13/97, Kent Crispin wrote: > > > > >First of all, it neglects to consider that governments may have > > >prevented more murders than they caused. This is unknowable, since > > >we don't have any worthwhile control cases. (I suppose we > > >might examine a state of anarchic chaos (eg Rawanda) and compare the > > >percentage of murders...but such cases are symptoms of other human > > >ills, and cannot be used as a meaningful comparison, I believe.) > > > > Rwanda (or Ruwanda, or...) is a _very_ poor example to pick, as this was > > not any kind of anarchy such as any of us have ever advocated. Rather, > > Rwanda was a near-textbook example of one tribal faction (Hutus or > > Tutsis) coming to power and inititiating a pogrom against the rival > > faction (Tutsis or Hutus). > > > > Calling this an "anarchy" is comparable to calling the pogrom by the > > Third Reich against Jews, gypsies, cripples, and others an example of > > anarchy. > > Nonsense. > > "anarchy n. the absence of government or control, resulting in > lawlessness. 2. disorder, confusion" -- Oxford American Dictionary > > Which part of that would you say didn't apply to Rwanda? I would say "none." Tim is essentially correct. Ironically, we know he's correct thanks to the United Nations and Judge Goldstein's International Criminal Tribunal, which Tim would oppose. (The answer to bad government is more government?) Jean-Marie Higiro was Rwanda's Minister of Telecommunications. He saw the radio turn into a tool of totalitarian propaganda. The killings were encouraged and organized by the government. He was there. Lindsey Hilsum was the only English-speaking reporter in Rwanda when the killings started. She described the situation as "anarchy" because she did not understand the language or the political situation. She later retracted that story, and spent several more months in Rwanda and Burundi documenting what really happened. She eventually testified before the ICT on what she saw. I think she's a really cool person. Raymond Bonner joined Lindsey in Rwanda later. You might recognize his name -- he's the guy who was fired by the New York Times because the Reagan Administration didn't like his reporting on human rights violations in El Salvador. Gilles Peress is a French photojournalist who documented the genocide in Rwanda both for himself and for the ICT. I met these folks and browsed the relevant documentation, recordings, and photos on April 11th. I believe them when they say it was planned. Blaming it on "evil government," though, is ludicrous. There was quite a lot more going on. If you want to look at anarchic chaos, try, maybe, Albania, or Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict. But even in those cases, the violence had specific targets for specific reasons. It wasn't unstructured anarchy, and it didn't last long. For all the press, there were few deaths in either case. > In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for > obvious reasons. Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't > consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs. There is no such thing as anarchy, and there never will be. -rich http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/

2 1

Problems at PGP?
by Steve 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hot Off The Press http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,10660,00.html Pretty Good Privacy CEO quits By Dawn Yoshitake May 14, 1997, 11:30 a.m. PT Security software firm Pretty Good Privacy announced today that its chief executive and president has resigned as the company mature from its start-up status. Thomas Steding, CEO, president, and a PGP founder, will now become a company adviser. The CEO position will be phased out, the company said. "This was a decision by the board and the executive staff. It seemed the right time," spokesman Mike Nelson said. "We're moving out of a start-up mode and into pursuit of the corporate marketplace. This was a minor adjustment to the staff." Nelson added that Steding will continue to advise the company on team-building and moving its operations quickly. Phillip Dunkelberger, former vice president of sales, will now become president and be responsible for the company's daily operations. Dunkelberger will also become a board member. Jonathan Seybold, a PGP founder, has been named chairman of the company. Nelson said the company is on target with its product development and sales and profitability targets, and will review where it stands financially and with its product lineup before setting a future course for an initial public offering. PGP, which has been in operation for a year, is scheduled to begin open beta testing for its Personal Privacy version 5.0 tomorrow. The commercial version is slated to be released later this month. Meanwhile, the crypto company has initiated a few acquisitions. One of its most recent was the March buyout of Zoomit, a directory technology that combines private intranets, pubic extranets, and the Internet. -- A picture tells a thousand words. Stego -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/IT/S d--() s+: a-- C++++(++)$ ULS+++@ P++@ L+(++)$ E- W+(+++)$ N++$ !o K-? w++(+++)$ !O+>++ !M !V PS+(+++)@ PE(++)@ Y++$ PGP@ t+@ 5++@ X++>$ R+++>$ tv+@ b+@ DI+++>$ D+++@>$ G@ e++@>++++ h r* y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

1 0

RSA v. PGP Complaint Correction
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Due to a transmittal error the latter half of the RSA v. PGP complaint was omitted from our offering this morning. The full complaint is now available at: http://jya.com/rsavpgp.txt (21K)

1 0

Information request
by DataET Research 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, If you are interested in having a high-quality, but extensively inexpensive, Web site designed for you, your résumé, or your company, visit http://www.dataet.com or contact info(a)dataet.com immediately, and request for additional information and/or a free cost and time estimation. Thanks for your time. We hope to hear from you soon. Regards, DataET Research Data Engineering Technologies info(a)dataet.com http://www.dataet.com

3 2

DoJ on Bombmaking Info
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We offer: "Report on the Availability of Bombmaking Information, the Extent to Which Its Dissemination Is Controlled by Federal Law, and the Extent to Which Such Dissemination May Be Subject to Regulation Consistent with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution Prepared by the United States Department of Justice As Required by Section 709(a) of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. Submitted to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate April 1997" ----- http://jya.com/abi.htm (193K) This relates to the proposed "Feinstein Amendment" of the AEPDA. It covers in detail what kind of speech is permissable now and what language for the amendment should be to close gaps. A fine distinction is traced between "teaching" the use of terrorist and mass destruction weapons and "advocating" them. Or something like that -- I am a jailhouse laugher.

1 0

DES challenge news (fwd)
by 3umoelle＠informatik.uni-hamburg.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Distributed key cracking efforts have been discussed in detail on cypherpunks and coderpunks for quite some time. A Swedish group trying to solve RSADSI's DES challenge chose to ignore the results. Here is what they got (from RISKS 19.14): >Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 17:56:54 +0200 (MET DST) >From: Thomas Koenig <ig25(a)mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de> >Subject: DES challenge news You may remember RISKS-19.09, in which I discussed the risks in a network-wide attack on the RSA DES challenge: The Swedish group at http://www.des.sollentuna.se/ didn't give out its source, so the client could, in fact, do anything, such as crack a master EC-card key. The reason given was client integrity. Well, a month after this, the promised source code release has not happened. Instead, it appears that somebody disassembled part of the client, made a version that reported fake "done" blocks, and then sent these to the servers. Moral? Don't ever think that nobody can read compiled code. Don't try to run a cooperative effort like this in a closed development model. Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig(a)ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25(a)dkauni2.bitnet. ------------------------------

1 0

Re: Spam IS Free Speech
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 14 May 97 at 14:57, Rick Osborne wrote: > Ross Wright wrote: > > >You can not retaliate against free speech, Rick. That's a bad > >thing, plain and simple, black and white. > > with him on this. I've got only a minor problem with Sanford > sending spam (it being unsolicited and all), I'm just saying that I > should not be denied the right to spam him right back. You can spam him back, but with just as many megs as he sends you. Match him meg for meg, not 10,000 megs for 1 meg. I have a unique way of dealing with spammers. I set up a list of the e-mail addresses of the spammers. Each time a new spammer spams me, I send him a copy of the addresses, telling him "I am not interested in your product or service, but my associates will be. Here's their addresses." Then I add him to the list, and so on. This way the spammers are spamming each other. Poetic Justice. And no harm done. > Do you see my point? It's all in > whether or not it's *solicited*. > Simply having an email address, to me, is *not* an invitation for > everyone > in the world to send me mail to it. Well, if you publish it on a website it *is* free game. > >What's your problem with your 'delete' key? > > Nothing. Like I said: I've got filters. I'm just saying that I > shouldn't have to use them (in a perfect world), as all "spam" I get > should be solicited. No perfect world here. Hell the deep dark secret that everyone glosses over is the fact that advertisers are using years of behavioral analysis to better market to us. That's the real conspiracy. > > >By now, everyone knows that any of those things are as good as > >giving away your e-mail address [...] it's an open invitation for > >me to send you advertisements, just like the yellow pages. > > Nope, you're getting confused here. Giving my email address is akin > to the *white* pages, while asking for spam is the *yellow* pages. I agree that the gathering of e-mail address from usenet and from mailing lists is a bad thing. *But* if you have a web page, you have a yellowpages ad. > If I were to put my phone number in the white pages of the local > phone book (which I don't), it would be so that someone who has a > *need* to contact me could. If I wanted people calling me for no > reason, I'd put an ad in the yellow pages. See what I'm saying? Right, but you see what I am saying about a web page being a yellow pages ad, right? > >You have the right to make some snotty reply, but no right > >to intentionally harm. > > Aha! There's the rub! If I'm paying for my connect time, then spam > *is* harmful. Please, a few megs between cyber-clients? No harm no foul. You get more megs of crap just from this list! I'd bet real money on that! > >Rick, what if someone decided they did not like an opinion > >you expressed on this list and did the same thing to you? > > Did what? Set up a robot to flame me? I'd hope they at least had > the guts to not do it anonymously, but I can't fault them for not > liking me. Set up a robot to send you megs and megs of crap, just for one e-mail, that's what I am saying. You wouldn't like that very much! > >You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at > >someone for something they say or some ad they send you. > > So why then do I not have the right to lash out at them in return? You do. One for one. Mano a mano. No more, no less. > >No one has a right to retaliate, get it? First Amendment? I > >didn't read in there the right to get back at some poor > >advertisers, did you? > > So you're saying that if I came along and dropped a few billion > pamphlets for a campaign of mine on your house. > *intentionally* cause the problems, I am in the clear? Give me a > break. But, you see, they send the pamphlets to a few billion addresses, not just to your house. Apples and oranges. > >Free Speech : Good Mail Bombs : Bad > > Spam = Mail Bomb = Arp attack. No essential difference. Why isn't > a mail bomb or arp attack proctected by your idealized free speech? Spam is not equal to an arp attack or a mail bomb. One letter to one address is quite different than 10,000 letters to one address. > >Are you a self centred ass, who's personal feelings are more > >important that the Constitution? > > Yes, I am a self-centered ass. Me too, by the way. An opinionated one, as well. > No, my feelings are not more > important than the Constitution, my feelings help *make* the > Constitution, remember? It's moot, anyway, as I'm not advocating > removing free speech. No you are advocating harming others who are speeking freely. > >You could be doing so much more with your time. > > True. And I could be doing *more* with my time if I didn't have to > spend it setting up spam filters! > > >No war, no battles, no skirmishes, no need for "Anti-Spam Laws". > > I agree. I'm not asking for any laws, just the right to annoy > spammers just as much as they annoy me. Why can't I do that? If I > decide to spam them, not our of retribution, but as an exercise of > my right to free speech, then how is it any different? Again, I say: One Meg Per One Meg. Equal and fair. > >Just be nice, and everything will work out for the best. > > You're more optimistic than I. Well, I just hope that this dosen't get carried away, that's all. Match them meg for meg that you personally receive, and everything really will be OK. And if we keep the government out of it. > It must be nice to not be cynical. It's just an act. I am pretty jaded. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

2 1

microstock market
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ultimately what cyberspace does in many ways is decrease the "granularity" of economic transactions. you can imagine that an economic transaction has an overhead cost associatd with it needed to manage the bureacracy of the cash transfer. the army of people that have to support check passing, such as the mailman, bankers, etc., the people in the company that have to open envelopes and punch keys, etc. ad infinitum. these vast teams/roles of people are going to vaporize to move into other aspects of the economy. increasingly, the overhead of an economic transaction will move toward the infinitesmal. this radically changes many business models. consider the stock market for example. you have a situation where it doesn' t make sense for a company to be traded on the stock market except after some threshhold has been reached. I suspect this threshhold is due directly to economics that could radically change in the near future (say a decade). what I suspect this might mean is not merely new kinds of stock markets, but a massive plethora of new forums in which business can be transacted in cyberspace. I think we are going to see many new stock exchanges as the capital moves towards the ones that most efficiently handle it. and increasingly, I think you will see very small companies have stocks. you will also see a much better means by which an investor can judge the value of a company. the assets will be more open and thoroughly revealed on public web sites of the company. increasingly the outsider will be able to "peer into" a company for investment or business purposes. the companies with the most open policies are going to be those most favored by their customers. what would be neat is if one could invest in very small companies or ideas. I suspect our economy is moving in exactly this direction. also in addition to this, I suspect that regulations governing stock transactions are going to be challenged and increasingly melt away in the long run. the open market will find its own ways of guaranteeing the safety of its transactions that will make government interference only draining or damaging. so you can imagine that our economy of today is like moving around big boulders-- you need a lot of people and organization to create economic transactions. in the future, transactions are going to decrease in granularity and you will have a system more like the flow of electricity throughout an entire system. the revolutionary implications of cyberspace have barely begun to be uncovered. ultimately it will radically change the nature of our economics and government systems just as the introduction of the printing press did in its time.

2 2

OTP
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May's reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated cud is completely inappropriate for the mailing lists into which it is cross-ruminated. \|/ /~~~~~~~\ | O O | -ooo-----U-----ooo- Timmy May

2 1

The E-Bomb
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dave Emery has pointed to an article, "The E-Bomb - a Weapon of Electrical Mass Destruction," which describes the work being done on EMP weapons. The piece is at Infowar.com, but we've borrowed a copy to put at: http://jya.com/ebomb.htm (93K + excellent diagrams) It may help explain that unearthly blast in the Aussie Outback discussed here a few weeks ago. Someone suggested HAARP as an explanation, and another hinted at other godawful research being done that similar to what the genius Tesla was doing early in the century to shatter the planet and fry the sky, and now, it seems, coming true.

1 0

BXA Docs
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BXA has published two short crypto-related docs, both dated May 8, 1997. William Reinsch's testimony on Goodlatte's bill: http://jya.com/bxa050897.htm Press release on Reinsch's ABA talk about the new regulations for financial transactions: http://jya.com/bxa050897-2.htm

1 0

Re: Rwanda and "anarchy"
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:48 5/14/97 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >Kent Crispin wrote: >> In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for >> obvious reasons. Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't >> consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs. > >There is no such thing as anarchy, and there never will be. I think it's at least a little tacky for you to ignore recent work which may have already shown your claim to be false. For the rest of you out there, I suggest that you check out AP part 9. There are excellent reasons that people considered true anarchy to be unattainable, because it was considered fundamentally unstable. Even I believed that, before 1995. Now, I've changed my opinion, and for good reason. Anarchy becomes stable if the population can anonymously target those who threaten danger to the rest. AP will do exactly this, so anarchy will become stable. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials....
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:27 5/14/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Wed, May 14, 1997 at 03:07:43PM -0400, Tom Allard wrote: >> How pedantic. Webster's New World Dictionary (also reputable, I might add), >> has THIS to say about "Anarchy": >> >> anarchy n. [Gr. an- without + archos, leader] 1. the absence of government >> 2. political disorder and violence 3. disorder; confusion >> >> Note the etymology. Taken to its roots, the word simply means "no leader". > >Note the second definition. A definition which it included because of years of misuse. It is said that language is a living thing, which it is, which means that if an error is made frequently enough it becomes the truth. Most of us understand this concept. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 21:11:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary You get a sense of the inevitable when you're handed a stack of press releases congratulating a committee for passing a bill -- an hour before the vote happens. That's what happened this afternoon when the House Judiciary committee unanimously approved SAFE, a bill that generally loosens export controls on crypto. Now, today's vote doesn't mean that the bill will move to the floor unmolested, and it doesn't mean that all its problems have been fixed. The Judiciary Committee doesn't have jurisdiction over export relaxations, and the bill's opponents pledged to fight when the measure moves to the International Relations committee. Then there's that portion about using crypto in a crime: it's been modified, cleaned up, but not removed. High and low points of today's hearing. I'll keep these short since I've got to get to sleep: * In another blow to the White House, the New Democrat Coalition is demanding that the White House change its crypto-policy. A letter the group of centrist Dems sent to Clinton today said: "We are deeply concerned that current policy restricting exports of cryptography technology poses a real threat to U.S. dominance..." * The heinous section of the law that would create broad new Federal felonies for some uses of crypto was replaced. The amendment, offered by Rep. Delahunt and adopted unanimously includes eight hurdles: "Any person who, in the commission of a felony under a criminal statute of the United States, knowingly and willfully encrypts incriminating information relating to that felony with the intent to conceal such information for the purposes of avoiding detection by law enforcement agencies or prosecution..." It's a solid improvement, but this language still has no business becoming law. Problem is, nobody seems to have the balls to stand up and yank it. Delahunt, the amendment's sponsor, said the bill without the amendment "could have a chilling effect on the development and use of encryption." He added: "I recognize that some supporters of this amendment would like that this section be removed altogether." But it doesn't seem likely. * The word on the streets is compromise. Hyde, chair of House Judiciary, brokered a meeting in his offices yesterday bringing together spooks, law enforcement, Goodlatte, and staffers. He says they're "very close to resolving any difficulties." Rep. McCollum chimed in: "It's just a matter of time before we work something out." Rep. Buyer said, and I am not making this up: "We should be good listeners to the NSA." Rep. Berman: "I hope there would be some way to bridge the differences between the administration and Goodlatte." More on this later... * Rep. Hutchinson introduced an amendment that passed unanimously: (a) The Attorney General shall compile, and maintain in classified form, data on the instances in which encryption (as defined in section 2801 of title 18 USC) has interfered with, impeded, or obstructed the ability of the Department of Justice to enforce the criminal laws of the United States. (b) The information compiled under subsection (a), including an unclassified summary thereof, shall be made available, upon request, to any Member of Congress. Problem is, a similar provision is *ALREADY LAW*. (It passed last year as part of an omnibus spending bill.) Brock Meeks wrote about it in his last Muckraker column: http://www.muckraker.com/ And this is bad news: we already know that piss-poor crypto -- we're talking Brian Milburn-style, or WordPerfect strength -- has interfered with investigations. But with the NSA's help, cops were able to tunnel through it. That's why the Feds should be looking not at whether it *interferes* with an investigation, but whether it has *derailed* one. At least when the NRC report came out last year, not one investigation was derailed through the use of crypto. But even if it has derailed an investigation -- well, that may be the price of freedom... * Rep. McCollum (R-Fl), a real Big Brother type of guy, added an amendment to page 4, line 14 that passed unanimously. Addition is in caps: Subsection (a) shall not afect the authority of any investigative or law enforcement officer OR ANY MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY acting under any law in effect on the effective date of this chapter, to gain access to encrypted information. Now what the hell does this mean? Says McCollum: ""it is truly a technical amendment." * Rep. Rothman was the only one who pointed out how government access to keys reduces freedom: "It raises civil libertarian and totalitarian issues for me." He recounted how at a recent hearing he asked the administration: "Let's cut to the chase: do you want to mandate this access?" The reply: "No, no, no." I've said it before and I'll say it again: Congress desperately wants to compromise. They're aching to split the difference, cut a deal, and screw the pooch in the process. Just watch for the backroom scheming over the next few months. And if the worst features of all the crypto-bills are combined into one package that's attached to a huge spending bill that "just has to go through" -- well, don't say I didn't warn you... -Declan

5 5

Re: Just Say "No" to Congress
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:25 AM 5/15/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Tim wrote: > >> We're basically under assault from all directions. The bozos in Congress >> and state governments are spinning out new laws and obscure regulations >> faster than we can react...and of course they're using our money to >> generate these laws and lobby for them. Further, a mostly-brainwashed >> Washington media population is surprising uncritical of these blizzard >> drifts of new laws. > >Hmmm... Do I get counted in the "mostly-brainwashed" category? I am sure that Tim knows by now that you don't fall into that category. Still, most members of the Washington media population seem brainwashed. At least judging by the stuff they publicize. >FYI, here are two bills that Feinstein introduced recently: Sigh. She is my Senator. [Don't blame me. I voted against her. But she hits the feelings of the Bay Area head on. "Big brother will bring you multi-cultural happiness." She is such a hypocrite. Even carried a gun after Moscone and Milk were shot and she thought herself in danger. Once she felt safe again, she went on TV and said that if she could get the votes in the Senate for total confiscation she would push for it. What's good for the goose...] -- 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

2 1

Response to "SAFE bill and cutting crypto-deals"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 23:00:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Response to "SAFE bill and cutting crypto-deals" ******* Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 01:56:20 -0400 From: Jason Gull <jgull(a)UMICH.EDU> While I don't particularly like this segment of the proposed bill either, I think Declan is engaging in some minor hyperbole when he says "this language has no business becoming law." We already have federal laws which make the use of a telephone or the mails to commit a felony into an additional offense, so this provision -- quite similar to obstruction of evidence, from the look of it -- doesn't seem at odds with precedent. With so many "hurdles," as Declan puts it, the language seems tailored to the specific case where incriminating information is encrypted solely to evade law enforcement and (like the passing of incriminating information to one's attorney in an attempt to make it "privileged") it doesn't seem outlandish to think that such conduct ought to be criminalized. Granted, there's the danger of the "slippery slope" -- that allowing any restrictions on crypto will lead to a gradual encroachment of government into other uses of cryptography. However, whether or not it is a good idea or not, politics and previosu law seem to firmly support such a provision. -Jason Gull jgull(a)umich.edu

1 0

Re: Just Say "No" to Congress
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:13 AM 5/14/97 -0800, Tim May wrote: >We're basically under assault from all directions. The bozos in Congress >and state governments are spinning out new laws and obscure regulations >faster than we can react...and of course they're using our money to >generate these laws and lobby for them. Further, a mostly-brainwashed >Washington media population is surprising uncritical of these blizzard >drifts of new laws. ... >The "there ought to be a law" crowd is in high gear. I seem to recall a proposal from the late 19th century suggesting that the Patent Office be closed because there was nothing left to invent. In a similar, but more serious vein, I think Congress should be shut down, because there are no new laws that we need. Excepting, of course, my earlier anonymous suggestion that children be kept from "soft targets". I'm not a TruthMonger, but I play one on T.V.

1 0

Re: Spam IS Free Speech
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 14 May 97 at 3:46, lucifer Anonymous Remailer wrote: > Ross Wright wrote: > > > > You can not retaliate against free > > speech, Rick. That's a bad thing, plain and simple, black and > > white. > > Crock of shit, Ross. No shit, you just can't send 10,000 megs of info in retaliation for a few bits. Really, there's no call for that. It's wrong. > It costs me money to download unwanted spam. What's this "free" > bullshit? What? Like 80 cents per gig? Please a bit here and a byte there isn't going to break anyone. Could someone do the math? > > Free speech is a right. You have the right to make some snotty > > reply, but no right to intentionally harm. > > Spammers neither know nor care if they are causing harm to the > finances or mental well-being of others. One message in your in box is no excuse for terror tactics. Mail bombs, arp atacks, calls for regulations: aren't you over reacting? Just a little? I think your mental well being is in question anyway. > If a spammer declares their right to cause me financial loss and > denial of service for the time it takes me to rid myself of their > unwanted intrusion What, like 5 seconds a week? Less? Please. It just isn't as bad as you make it seem. Shit I love this, the spammers love this. There is no such thing as *bad* publicity. The more you screem the better it is for the "bad spammers". > then they can have no expectation that I, in > turn, will not declare what level of financial loss and denial of > service I will cause them. You have no right to deny them more than the few seconds of service that you lost. Any more than that is terror tactics, and a waste of time. You should be working on better projects than "Let's fuck over the spammers". Wow, that's productive. Shit, man write some useful code. > > You, nor anyone else, has a right to lash out at > > someone for something they say or some ad they send you. > > So spammers have no right to lash out at my sending them a > gigabyte of email regarding the evils of spamming. A gig for a few bytes. Why? That's so lame. Such a watse of talented code writing. And why are you escalating this? > > > It makes > > > *me* feel better. > > > > Ahhh, at last the point. Are you a self centred ass, who's > > personal feelings are more important that the Constitution? > > Ross has failed to explain just how the Constitution promotes the > spammer's right to intrude upon the spammer's life and cause them > financial loss while denying that right to the spammee. Well I've tried to describe that you lose about a dime per year. > Ross' personal feelings seem to be important enough to him to cast > slurs on those who disagree with his black-and-white opinions > regarding his right to spam others without them having a > corresponding right to reply in kind. You can feel free to send me twice as many bytes as I send to you, OK? Feel beter? No! You must fuck me over because I sent you my latest MLM scam. Yeah that's so mature! Come out from behind your remailer and state your opinions, wrong as they are. > Gander. Goose. Right. If I send you a gig, you send me a gig. If I send you a meg you send me a meg. A few bytes for a few bytes. Are you following what has upset me about this issue, yet? Like for Like, Goose, Gander. You said it, but you don't mean it. Right? You are saying if I send you one message, you have the right to mail bomb me? There's no parity there. It's very distressing how much of a hot button this issue is. >TruthMonger Lier. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

9 15

Civil Disobediance
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"All that matters is how we die: shall we offer our bodies helplessly, like cattle, to the knife, or, refusing passively to await the end shall we turn the strength of our anger to one last battle, til, daring and doing, we fall, drenched with their blood, amongst the heaped bodies and weapons of our dying enemies?" -- Livy Book XXV We've seen many sentiments like this one on the list lately. Such sentiments are understandable and have a certain visceral appeal. And it is good that people who are thinking along these lines are also telling their friends on the list instead of censoring themselves. But, these strategies are not the best we can choose to achieve our true goals. Few of us wish to be martyrs. The years long discussion of "crypto policy" has had the unfortunate and intended effect that it has caused us to become accustomed to restrictions on sharing ideas. That doesn't mean we like it, but it does mean that we consider the control of mathematical ideas to be expected and somewhat inevitable. (The same mechanisms we use to train animals are at work here.) Many of us have, perhaps, lost our youthful rage at the complete absurdity of a law which makes it highly illegal to invent some math, express it in code, and distribute it for free to the world. Perhaps there is a way to turn the training on the trainers? Civil disobediance is the best way to do this. Were a relatively small number of people, a thousand for instance, to post the "RSA in 3 lines" code to the world, it would be highly unlikely that anybody at all would be prosecuted, particularly if a sizeable number of these people were professors, graduate students, professionals at well known companies, journalists, politicians?, or otherwise prominent people. The whole situation would be so absurd they would never dare take it to court. If no response results from the first release of code, more people will feel comfortable jumping in when it becomes clear that they have a chance to change the world. The longer somebody waits, the less opportunity they have to tell their grandkids "I was the 500th person to publically export RSA back in the late 20th century. The government was actually trying to make math illegal!" Best of all, anybody "fortunate" enough to be a U.S. citizen can participate, even if they don't write code themselves. Having established beyond any doubt that the export of RSA was possible without repercussions, the lesson will be driven home by group releases of successively longer mathematical works expressed in source code. The first release will be the most challenging. In no time at all everybody - including everybody in the government - will find themselves accustomed to the idea that laws against mathematics are absurd. (Even Senators will be able to grasp this unchallenging concept.) It is not hard for the government and the newspapers to discredit militia type activities involving large weapons collections and chemistry experiments. But, no matter how much spin is put on it, it is extremely hard to persuade the public that sending a few lines of source code is terrorism, especially when they can download it off the web and see for themselves that it is just, well, source code, and maybe export it themselves. The way to get started is for people to pledge to post "RSA in 3 lines" if certain conditions are met. For instance, "I will post 'RSA in 3 lines' if 500 people promise to do it as well, among them being Michel Foucault, Jacob Bernoulli, and Blaise Pascal." No risk need be taken without allies! Dr. Roberts

8 8

Sweeps Week in Portland
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

News from the Beirut of the West: The FBI, in cooperation with the Portland police and the TV show "Cops" is ending a six month survelence project of downtown Portland. Tonight, armed with large books containing pictures of suspects, they have congregated in the center of town arresting all of those caught in their video web. Over the last 6-8 hours they have been arresting hundreds of suspects in the downtown area. The arrests are a "show of force" in the downtown area. The police used to watch over the people. Now they are watching the people. Expect to see similar activity in the town where you live. "Be seeing you!" DonutMonger #666

1 0

Sweeps Week in Portland
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

News from the Beirut of the West: The FBI, in cooperation with the Portland police and the TV show "Cops" is ending a six month survelence project of downtown Portland. Tonight, armed with large books containing pictures of suspects, they have congregated in the center of town arresting all of those caught in their video web. Over the last 6-8 hours they have been arresting hundreds of suspects in the downtown area. The arrests are a "show of force" in the downtown area. The police used to watch over the people. Now they are watching the people. Expect to see similar activity in the town where you live. "Be seeing you!" DonutMonger #666

1 0

NIST Crypto Notices
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Two May 13 Federal Register notices by NIST: NIST is planning to develop a FIPS for Public-Key Based Cryptographic Key Agreement and Exchange. This notice solicits comments regarding techniques for consideration specifically including RSA, Diffie-Hellman, and Elliptic Curve techniques. This standard will be for use in designing and implementing public-key based key agreement and exchange systems which Federal departments and agencies operate or which are operated for them under contract. More than one algorithm may be specified, consistent with sound security practices, to enable Federal departments and agencies enhanced flexibility in the design, implementation, and use of cryptographic systems. http://jya.com/nist051397.txt (6K) NIST is planning to develop a proposed revision to Federal Information Processing Standard 186, Digital Signature Standard. This revision would specify additional public-key based digital signature algorithms (in addition to the Digital Signature Algorithm [DSA]) for use in designing and implementing public-key based signature systems which Federal departments and agencies operate or which are operated for them under contract. The purpose of the revision will be to enable Federal departments and agencies greater flexibility, consistent with sound security practices, in the design, implementation, and use of public-key based digital signature systems. http://jya.com/dss-rev.txt (6K)

1 0

Re: Pedophile Russ Allberry continues to flame Steve Boursy
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

kibo <kibo(a)thecia.net> writes: > > [DrG - if you want to follow up, please dig up the original article, not > > my repose - thank you] > > > O.K., I will chop all of the header befor I post it, but this Russ Allbery Thanks!! > is becoming the biggest problem on usenet, since he supports Tim Skirvin. > I think it is time for Russ to grow up and deal with the Net like a man. > > Time for him to become a child molester. Well - if you want to say you heard that he's a child molester or that he sounds like one, no decent ISP will have a problem. :-) I think it would be fun to get Russ back on this list. > > By the way, has anyone had a chance to verify whether Stan Kalisch who work > > for the educational testing services is our net.acquaintance? Thanks. > > > > Yes, I called them at that number, and and boss called me back. Great - is he or isn't he the same person as skalisch@crl?? Thanks > All Russ has to do is say the word, and Tim Skirvin will stop his > shit. Russ Allbery is just as responsible for the Skirvin shit as > Timmy boy himself is. > > Time to rip Russ Allbery a new asshole... Maybe we should get Tim Skirvin on this list. :-) --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

(rumor) US TV host canned over comments
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can anyone confirm for me that a US talk show host was canned for airing her thoughts on the aid package for Iran's earthquake victims? I heard "Only bad people and terrorists live there. If I had my way I'd drop an atomic bomb on Tehran." Anyone?

1 0

Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:16:06 -0400 From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir(a)vtw.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary At 9:11 PM -0700 5/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >* The heinous section of the law that would create > broad new Federal felonies for some uses of crypto was > replaced. The amendment, offered by Rep. Delahunt > and adopted unanimously includes eight hurdles: > > "Any person who, in the commission of a felony under > a criminal statute of the United States, knowingly > and willfully encrypts incriminating information > relating to that felony with the intent to conceal > such information for the purposes of avoiding > detection by law enforcement agencies or > prosecution..." > > It's a solid improvement, but this language still has > no business becoming law. Problem is, nobody seems to > have the balls to stand up and yank it. Delahunt, > the amendment's sponsor, said the bill without the > amendment "could have a chilling effect on the > development and use of encryption." He added: "I > recognize that some supporters of this amendment would > like that this section be removed altogether." But it > doesn't seem likely. I'm more than a little surprised at your take on this amendment. This exact language wasn't created by Representatives who don't know better, it was created, shopped, and marketed to the hill by the folks at the ACLU (Don Haines) and EPIC. In response to concerns from the net, they coordinated the letter from many groups to Goodlatte about the criminal provision which just about everyone signed onto. Then, EPIC and the ACLU worked out the language above, and got it passed verbatim in response to the concerns of the net community. They did a great job here and really deserve a lot of kudos. Why are you slighting their work? -S

1 0

Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 07:26:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir(a)vtw.org> Cc: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary Shabbir, You're mistaken. I'm not "slighting their work" -- I called it a "solid improvement." Yeah, I know who shopped this around. I spoke with David and Don about this last week, and didn't write about it then for fear of jeopardizing their negotiations. And come on, you're "more than a little surprised" by my take? Give me a break. My position now is consistent with my position before -- and comes as no surprise. Reread my previous posts. But you're missing the point: this whole "crypto in a crime" section should not be in this bill in the first place. The new portion is much better than the old, but it still has no business being law. -Declan On Thu, 15 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote: > At 9:11 PM -0700 5/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >* The heinous section of the law that would create > > broad new Federal felonies for some uses of crypto was > > replaced. The amendment, offered by Rep. Delahunt > > and adopted unanimously includes eight hurdles: > > > > "Any person who, in the commission of a felony under > > a criminal statute of the United States, knowingly > > and willfully encrypts incriminating information > > relating to that felony with the intent to conceal > > such information for the purposes of avoiding > > detection by law enforcement agencies or > > prosecution..." > > > > It's a solid improvement, but this language still has > > no business becoming law. Problem is, nobody seems to > > have the balls to stand up and yank it. Delahunt, > > the amendment's sponsor, said the bill without the > > amendment "could have a chilling effect on the > > development and use of encryption." He added: "I > > recognize that some supporters of this amendment would > > like that this section be removed altogether." But it > > doesn't seem likely. > > I'm more than a little surprised at your take on this amendment. This > exact language wasn't created by Representatives who don't know better, it > was created, shopped, and marketed to the hill by the folks at the ACLU > (Don Haines) and EPIC. In response to concerns from the net, they > coordinated the letter from many groups to Goodlatte about the criminal > provision which just about everyone signed onto. > > Then, EPIC and the ACLU worked out the language above, and got it passed > verbatim in response to the concerns of the net community. They did a > great job here and really deserve a lot of kudos. Why are you slighting > their work? > > -S

1 0

Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:59:23 -0400 From: Barry Steinhardt <barrys(a)aclu.org> To: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir(a)vtw.org>, Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Cc: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary Declan and Shabbir, I thought it might be helpful to your dialouge to give you the ACLU's current views about SAFE. The language significantly limiting the criminalization provision was indeed drafted by EPIC and the ACLU. Don Haines and Dave Sobel did a great The language was an improvement , but it doesn't belong in the bill and we are still lobbying to have the criminalization provision removed. All of us in the cyber liberties community need to watch this legislation very carefully. It could easily get much worse as a "compromise" is reached with the Administration. In the end,the bill could be laden with amendments on issues like key recovery that defeat our purpose of making strong and secure encryption generally available. At some point, we may need to say that no bill is better than a bad bill. At 10:32 AM 5/15/97 -0400, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote: >At 7:26 AM -0700 5/15/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>Shabbir, >> >>You're mistaken. I'm not "slighting their work" -- I called it a "solid >>improvement." >> >>Yeah, I know who shopped this around. I spoke with David and Don about >>this last week, and didn't write about it then for fear of jeopardizing >>their negotiations. > >Then why didn't you give them credit for it in the story? They should be >lauded for writing this amendment which is a solid improvement. EPIC and >ACLU did great work, and deserve more credit in your story than you gave >them. > >-S > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ Barry Steinhardt Barrys(a)aclu.org Associate Director 212 944-9800 ext 614 (v) American Civil Liberties Union 212 354-5290 (fax) 132 West 43 Street NYC 10036 **** PGP Key available at: http://www.aclu.org/about/pgpkeys.html **** Visit the ACLU Web Site http://www.aclu.org ACLU can be found on AOL at Keyword ACLU ACLU Supports the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC) http://www.gilc.org

1 0

FW: Anonymous Remailers
by Roger J. Jones 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:17 AM -0800 5/14/97, Roger J. Jones wrote: >Why is it that some who are very concerned about their personal privacy >utilize anonymous remailers that: > >1) Log all of their mail messages? Tim May Responded With chained, multiply-encrypted messages, logs are ineffective unless all of the links in the chain collude to trace messages. While this is certainly possible, it seems unlikely. Roger J Jones Responded Several of you have suggested as Tim has that the chain of remailers is secure. I suggest that the statement is only true to the extent that one wants to trace back a particular message. On the other hand, if one wants to find the source of postings to anonymous remailers and has skilled access to the Internet the task is quite simple and does not even require attacking the remailers. Of course, one could break the chain by having the remailers call each other outside of the Internet, but then of course the phone records would disclose the connection. Then again, one could hard wire a private connection between two remailers outside of both the Internet and the phone system but even this connection would be disclosed through reasonable traffic analysis. Of course, the simple fact that even encrypted streams need to include the ultimate destination of the message makes content analysis easier and weakens the encryption. Then again, all of this is a lot of work. Social Engineering and pure bribery would more likely be the most efficient and effective solution. Roger J Jones wrote: >2) Are in many cases reputed to be run by foreign intelligence services? Tim May Responded This allegation was made by some clueless Washington think tank authors. They provided no evidence, only innuendo, and they were unwilling or unable to provide any further comments when queried by several Cypherpunks. And given that many or even most of the remailer operators are members of the various related Cypherpunks or Remailers Operators lists, and are known to various of us, the notion that most (or even many) remailers are run by intelligence agencies is absurd. At 9:48 AM -0800 5/14/97, Roger J. Jones wrote: I suggest that just because you chose to characterize the sources as "clueless Washington think tank authors" does not (as they say in Star Trek - The Next Generation) "make it so". The "allegation" that foreign governments actively participate in actions to violate personal privacy ("borrowing" laptops from traveling businesspeople, taping phones, etc.) are all documented in various places. Of course, they could all the result of a single psyop with excellent results. But I doubt it. Tim May Responded Your first point, using some kind of Star Trek lingo, is beyond comment. I provided a lot more context than your original point provided, and yet you seem to want even more documentation. Go back and read the archives for a discussion of this paper (hint: search on "remailers" ANDed with "SAIC." Pay particular attention to the critique of this paper by such folks as Raph Levien, and others. Anonymous Responded Yes, you are missing a lot. The bit about foreign inteligence agencies is almost certainly a canard created by one Strassman at a conference in Boston 2 years ago, then retracted. Anyway, if you use chaining, it's irrelevant. See <A HREF="http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ocean.htm"> http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ocean.htm </A> and <A HREF="http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/arbitr.htm"> http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/arbitr.htm </A> for the gory details. Roger J Jones Responded Given that several of you have suggested that the "foreign agent" theory is a hoax I suggest that this does not give me much faith either. What we have is the classic case that it difficult if not impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. For example, presume that one could identify every real owner of every remailer in the Internet universe. Have we proved anything? Not really. Because in the time it has taken to prove the case, a new remailer could have been created. Or the remailer that one thinks is secure could be down with a different remailer operating as an IT spoof. Or, after checking with the owner of the "safe" remailer the owner becomes subject to the normal desires of life (fear, greed, power, etc.) and "turns." The existence of both type one and type two errors prevents even an exhaustive search from being fully satisfied. Roger J Jones wrote >Do they really trust the owner of the remailer? (Unless of course, it is >their remailer?) I seem to be missing something. Roger J Jones wrote further...... So, chaining does not seem to be a secure solution. It just makes the process more difficult, but not impossible. The non-existance of "agents" who would operate a remailer for purposes other than protecting security can not be proven. I still seem to be missing something.........

3 2

Re: Difference in terms
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz(a)as-node.jena.thur.de>writes: >> key recovery is if I can get my key >> key escrow is if you can get my key "Key Escrow" was "We want your keys". "Software Key Escrow" was "OK, Clipper was a loser, but we want your keys" "Public Key Infrastructure" was "Here, have some keys" "Trusted Third Party" was "Hey, trust us, we want your keys" "Key Recovery" is "OK, that didn't work, but we still want your keys" # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

TEXTO - Text steganography
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------------------------------------ TEXTO - Text steganography ------------------------------------ Texto is a rudimentary text steganography program which transforms uuencoded or pgp ascii-armoured ascii data into English sentences. Texto text files look like something between mad libs and bad poetry, (although they do sometimes contain deep cosmic truths) and should be close enough to normal english to get past simple-minded mail scanners and to entertain readers of talk.bizarre. ------------- Perhaphs this explains why, when I tried it, it signed Paul Bradley's name to the output. _Mr._ Nobody to _you_, pal.

3 2

Re: Difference in terms
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:43 PM -0800 5/14/97, Bill Stewart wrote: >>Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz(a)as-node.jena.thur.de>writes: >>> key recovery is if I can get my key >>> key escrow is if you can get my key > >"Key Escrow" was "We want your keys". >"Software Key Escrow" was "OK, Clipper was a loser, but we want your keys" >"Public Key Infrastructure" was "Here, have some keys" >"Trusted Third Party" was "Hey, trust us, we want your keys" >"Key Recovery" is "OK, that didn't work, but we still want your keys" > SAFE is "All Americans deserve strong security and unlimited strength crypto, but we still want your keys." "Pro-CODE is about the right to have and export military-grade crypto, but we still want your keys." Or as Congressman J. Getalong put it, "SAFE is a step toward a future of security and prosperity. The legitimate needs of law enforcement are being met by this bill. We are good listeners of the NSA, and the NSA is a good listener to all of us. And I do mean all of us. All Americans will prosper from this new working relationship with Big Brother. War is Peace and SAFEty is liberty," --Emmanuel Goldstein There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: OTP: Yeah, you know me: Vulis
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Demento Vulis 's reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated auto-spam is completely inappropriate for the mailing lists into which it is auto-spammed by his inbred evil spam-bots. Demento couldn't write a single lick of cryptographic code if his NSA masters and his KGB brothers paid him for it. But truth be known, he sells his spamming software to Cyberpromo and their ilk, and gets paid in anal sex performed on him by large testicled bulls - often without applying vaseline in his cavernous anus. He has killed many bulls in this manner. \|/ /~~~~~~~\ | O O | -ooo-----U-----ooo- Demento Vulis

1 0

Re: The Inducement of Rapid Oxidation of Certain Materials....
by Graham C. Hughes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Content-Type: text/plain > Oh, this is just charming. People are still dying, and now you're > going to sit on the sidelines writing email messages to people about > what they're discussing on some mailing list. Better than being the one to bring it up in the first place. Really, is a crypto list an appropriate place for that sort of tripe, any more than it is for this? > > You can't count up human lives and say ``this entity is more evil than > > this entity.'' It doesn't work that way. People are people, > > regardless, and usually don't deserve that kind of premature > > termination. > > Your use of the word "usually" betrays your hypocrisy. If some people > "don't deserve that kind of premature termination," it follows that > some do: presumably those that are more evil than the rest. I do believe that there are varying degrees of evil, yes. I do not believe they can be differentiated by counting bodies. I remarked `usually', because of a practical bend; the Rhwandans certainly don't deserve their lot, but there are others who well deserve premature termination in one form or another; Dahmer comes to mind. From time to time, I thought that things would be better off if I were to simply die. Put another way, the situation in Rhwanda distorts the usual life-and-death cycle, by killing indiscriminately people who should live much longer. Dahmer, a man who lived in death, could hardly come to a more appropriate end. As I look back on that paragraph, I do acknoledge it was poorly worded, and I apologize for the difficulties. No one, not even Dahmer deserves the hardships Rhwandans (to pick a convenient example) are going through. > So you're saying that fewer people would die in Rwanda if we discussed > something else? What exactly is it that you think the members of the > Cypherpunks list should do about it (assuming for the sake of argument > that "we" wanted to do anything)? I just don't think it's appropriate to center a long flame about. Does it not cause you, too, anguish to see such a situation fought over like a dog bone? - -- Graham Hughes http://A-abe.resnet.ucsb.edu/~graham/ MIME & PGP mail OK. (define pgp-fingerprint "E9 B7 5F A0 F8 88 9E 1E 7C 62 D9 88 E1 03 29 5B") (require 'stddisclaim) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBM3tIqyqNPSINiVE5AQFYPgP+MdJRFnhYL6UktZkVKbZhduRvVD56YfMk RG3KzSr5H5Jr7hE8kcURgXcfpeHTeNjmj5QRSsLBI4L9ldLFeVHWkIzhk4L/ajhV 3hQdJWvJSixZbDLn+k6yFaFOm/VAXlE7pI7VRTY/iggw8RrtlT4yd/dUHwOV+xDj Dn47e3bKc0w= =L0Wl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[CRYPTO] Blowfish
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here, Tim C. May descends into total inanity. He should have a cold shower and/or a Turkish coffee. ___\ <o \__o Tim C. May X\ X> _/_\____<_\_

2 1

[Fwd: ITAR / S 1726 / Civil Disobedience]
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/ "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld "The Final Frontier" http://www3.sk.sympatico.ca/carljohn/ To: president(a)whitehouse.gov, toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca Subject: ITAR / S 1726 / Civil Disobedience From: "C.J. Parker" <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> Date: Fri May 16 5:42:13 1997 Dear Mr. President, I am writing to express my disapproval of the Clinton Administration's position on the ITAR restrictions for encryption software. This is an important issue to me. 1) Software is writing, so it is protected by the first amendment, so the ITAR is unconstitutional. The idea that only paper books are first amendment protected, and electronic books are not, is just plain wrong. 2) The ITAR does not help National Security, but in fact greatly reduces our nations security because the Internet, and the computers and information connected to it, are kept from using good Encryption. 3) I feel that encryption is very important for doing commerce on the Internet, and that commerce on the Internet is important for our economy (Internet is the fastest growing sizable segment). You say you like the "Information Super Highway" and you are "going to focus on the economy like a laser". You should be removing the ITAR restrictions on American businesses. Otherwise the business for commerce software will go to companies in other countries. 4) The Clinton Clipper III proposal to have government key escrow is not acceptable. Also, it will never work, since people will always be able to buy and use software from the rest of the world. This proposal is just slowing down Internet progress. Please cancel Clipper III. 5) Please support Senator Burns Pro-CODE bill S 1726 that would end this foolishness. Or better yet, just take software off the list of "munitions". The current law, (see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/22/2778.html) says that "The President shall periodically review the items on the United States Munitions List to determine what items, if any, no longer warrant export controls under this section. The results of such reviews shall be reported to the Speaker of the House [...] at least 30 days before any item is removed from the Munitions List [...]." 5) As an act of civil disobedience I have personally exported an encryption program (it is 3 lines of writing) using the web page at http://online.offshore.com.ai/arms-trafficker/ Yours sincerely, C.J. Parker toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca Sent from host lohner20.sk.sympatico.ca with IP 142.165.98.20

1 0

Re: Wine Politics Again!
by Jim Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 06:53 PM 5/13/97 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 09:26 PM 5/9/97 -0800, Tim May wrote: >>I am shipping a few bottles of California's finest merlot (much nicer than >>the trendy cabernets) to my sister and her husband in Hollywood, FL. > >You're a bit late - merlots have been getting more trendy :-) >But Chiles hasn't signed the Florida law quite yet, so you're also early. And he may not. Taxin' Lawton is, if nothing else, a wind-direction indicator, and this law isn't too popular among the rabble. >Do they even _grow_ wine in Florida? Barely, and it's not as good as Tim's merlot. The orange wine for tourists is truly horrible. >You'd think it would be the >cocaine industry trying to get their product regulated to keep prices high. [Comment about credulous media reprints of San Jose Merc/CIA denials of contra cokesmuggling reluctantly suppressed. Tongue bleeding.] >>There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. > >It's especially ridiculous that shipping wine should be a *felony*. >Mike Froomkin points out that the Constitutional Amendment ending >Prohibition lets states make their own stupid decisions like this, >and it probably overrides Commerce Clause controls. Yeah, and for stupidity, Tallahassee is hard to beat. >You'd expect that a law that's made primarily to protect business >interests would have business-oriented penalties - like fines for >conducting wine-shipping without a wine-shipping license, >or triple fines for not filling out paperwork in triplicate. I've met some of these guys -- hell I've run against one of them. We aren't talking Einstein-level here, or even Forest Gump. >Does anyone know if either state's laws also penalize the >recipient of the Demon Grape, or only the sender? ... I don't know, but I'm willing to risk getting some Merlot and finding out as a public service to the cypherpunks list. Y'all could even try to mail me a bottle anonymously. ;-) JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEPAwUBM3t9LzUhsGSn1j2pAQHavAfONFdPqiU76q17liQMYGA+AwEcwnZaipBu AvRqxq7FpeLLM1lR2POCJRBo2rRIXjajwmKacaBG7x08dqsMHug1hul4v2Kge7QV MtSzwTOokPqwP73O2SU2udB+6d3b5S9rgVjbIDps60iKxVSyEfzVM6B33t6gFBNB CXYNQoIEx4bOI2puNM6aFX+zsUvDjoSZ5EbWbjRE6tabMKIMPZgVH+QQ4i+En+8I ug9OaUeFiptHWUzqciqDm70fhhJxsGqH83aj1EDAFj1WCgdo9mBKJjDo2F8fsLCr Mrs+TWYd+lq+T//lpVvc65ENTwMh1pjDCyRoXJIUsTW+Qw== =lheO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Jim Ray <jmr(a)shopmiami.com> DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy One of the "legitimate concerns of law enforcement" seems to be that I was born innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around. -- me http://shopmiami.com/prs/jimray/ PGP id.A7D63DA9 98 1F 39 BA 93 86 B4 F5 57 52 64 0E DA BA 2C 71

1 0

NEW!! CONFERENCE AGENDA IR AND SECURITY
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Received: from muwayb.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (muwayb.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU [128.250.20.7]) by eduserv.its.unimelb.EDU.AU (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id HAA28553 for <s_mark6(a)eduserv.its.unimelb.edu.au>; Wed, 14 May 1997 07:03:14 +1000 (EST) X-Received: from directory-daemon by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.1-8 #17781) id <01IIUND0S1C00002GS(a)muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> for s_mark6(a)eduserv.its.unimelb.edu.au; Wed, 14 May 1997 07:04:25 +1000 X-Received: from directory-daemon by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.1-8 #17781) id <01IIUND0K3Y80002FQ(a)muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> for irtheory(a)politics.unimelb.edu.au; Wed, 14 May 1997 07:04:25 +1000 X-Received: from wona1.ethz.ch (wona1-rz-vms.ethz.ch) by muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (PMDF V5.1-8 #17781) with ESMTP id <01IIUNCVGG8S0002GF(a)muwayb.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> for IRTHEORY(a)UNIMELB.EDU.AU; Wed, 14 May 1997 07:04:25 +1000 X-Received: from 129.132.196.50 (sipo50.ethz.ch) by wawona.ethz.ch (PMDF V5.0-4 #16342) id <01IIU5LJINA8934Q4Y(a)wawona.ethz.ch> for IRTHEORY(a)UNIMELB.EDU.AU; Tue, 13 May 1997 22:37:06 +0100 Resent-date: Thu, 15 May 1997 13:38:40 +1000 (EST) Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 22:37:45 +0000 Resent-from: "M.Beavis" <s_mark6(a)eduserv.its.unimelb.edu.au> From: isn(a)sipo.reok.ethz.ch Subject: NEW!! CONFERENCE AGENDA IR AND SECURITY To: IRTHEORY(a)unimelb.edu.au This message was sent to all institutions included in the ISN. Please spread it within your institution. Apologize cross-posting. ************************************************************* ** CONFERENCE AGENDA ** ** INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND SECURITY ** ** ON THE INTERNET ** ** ** ** Run by ** ** ISN - International Relations and Security Network ** ** http://www.isn.ethz.ch ** ************************************************************* TO ANNOUNCE YOUR FORTHCOMING CONFERENCES ON THE INTERNET USE OUR ADD-A-LINK FORM AT http://www.isn.ethz.ch ************************************************************* As part of its electronic services, the ISN has newly established the following directories: 1) An electronic CONFERENCE AGENDA in the field of international relations, regional security, as well as peace and conflict studies (including both physical and virtual conferences). Conference announcements are accepted independently from having an own home page. 2) a special DIRECTORY OF ELECTRONIC DISCUSSION LISTS in the same fields. The aim of the two new services is to facilitate information exchange about international academic events and to promote the use of electronic means for interactive dialogue within the security community. Both directories are accessible from the ISN home page. Members of the community are called upon announcing their forthcoming activities through this new public directories. Thank you for your cooperation. The ISN team ********************************************************* The ISN is maintained by the Center for Security Studies and Conflict Research at ETH Zurich, in conjunction with the Euro-Atlantic Foundation, Brussels, and EINIRAS. ISN is supported by the Swiss Government. Contacts: ISN Secretariat: isn(a)sipo.reok.ethz.ch ISN Webmaster: webmaster(a)sipo.reok.ethz.ch ********************************************************* ---------------------------------------------------------------------- --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0