December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Pretty Good Piracy
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If anyone has a copy of Viacrypt's Pretty Good Prying, it would be nice if they would make it available to those who want to get to work finding out how to best sabotage it. I am not against Viacrypt producing surveillance software for those who want it, but I resent their perversion of a product whose reputation capital is the result of the integrity and effort of a great many people whose interests lie in privacy, not in surruptitious surveillance. I can guarantee that any system I have access to which contains this twisted sister of PGP will have my hand up its dress, playing with its private parts. What is ViaCrypt's marketing plan? "Make sabotaging the security of your system a badge of honour among the elite of the computer security industry. Buy mis-represented PGP." "You need not fear our product having been sabotaged by privacy purists within ViaCrypt, because we fired all the people with integrity." "We stole the reputation, but we wouldn't steal your information." "It's not GAK. I was just clearing my throat." "Tired of the employees banging your wife...?" RottsaRaffsMongel

2 1

MTBF
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, MTBF is usualy given as a single number, number_of_base_time_units from initial turn-on to 1st failure given no power downs or other interruptions. This is effectively of the form number_of_base_time_units/failure. This is clearly equivalent to number_of_failures/base_time_unit for practical use. Especialy considering that in this form you generaly don't ever need to do a division as you do if you use the first form. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Traffic Analysis (fwd)
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/5/97 1:18 PM, Jim Choate (ravage(a)ssz.com) passed this wisdom: >> Subject: Re: Traffic Analysis (fwd) >> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 97 11:59:53 -0400 >> >> On 10/3/97 10:49 AM, Jim Choate (ravage(a)ssz.com) passed this >> wisdom: >> >>>If the MTBF for a remailer is n then the MTBF for m remailers >>>is n*m. Inother words the remailer chain gets less reliable as >>>it gets longer. >> >> Jim, you want to take a look at that "n*m" again ... it >>doesn't wash. means MTBF goes *up* which means *more* reliable. > >Remember n is a fraction, failures/time_period ... > >If your MTBF is 1 failure per year for each system and you have 10 >systems your MTBF is 10 failures per year. Looks like multiplication >to me.... Maybe I have been away from hardcore engineering for too long, but last time I checked MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) is measured in time (seconds, minutes, hours etc) not in failures per year that would be called 'failure rate' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNDf4WMdZgC62U/gIEQJy/QCeKTFBl+4yLC4mDnr/32uh8w8rbLsAn086 Y+veBvWn4ULlxuJBT0+Bun4N =7xHN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "One of the deep mysteries to me is our logo, the symbol of lust and knowledge, bitten into, all crossed with in the colors of the rainbow in the wrong order. You couldn't dream of a more appropriate logo: lust, knowledge, hope, and anarchy." -- Gassee - Apple Logo

1 0

ViaCrypt Fires Tim C. May
by ViaCrypt FiringBot 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: ViaCrypt FiringBot To: Tim C. May Dear Ms. May, We regret to inform you that your employment with ViaCrypt has been terminated, effectively immediately. In accordance with company policy we will outline the reasons for your termination below. 1. Records from your company supplied E-ZPass electronic toll booth pass indicate that you are arriving in the city over an hour before you begin work, leading us to believe that you are engaged in personal activities during this time which take away from the energy you have left to put into your company work. 2. The OnStar satellite-positioning service reports that your company supplied Cadillac was parked at the restaurant where you ate with your company supplied Visa card for an hour and ten minutes. Employees are only allowed one hour for lunch breaks. 3. The Teletrac global-positioning satellite has reported that you exceeded the speed limit twice in one day (32 mph in a 30 mph zone, and 56 mph in a 55 mph zone). 4. The passive tracking microchip on your company supplied ID card was tracked by our remote sensors in six parts of the city which we prefer that our employees not enter. 5. Your company supplied cellular phone was used to call someone not in our business database who used his MasterCard to buy condoms at a local pharmacy during a weekend when his wife used her Visa to take a trip out of town. This reflects badly on the company. 6. The company aerial drone reports that in several passes over your home, the presence of marihuana smoke was detected. 7. Surveillance of your company email indicates that you have been using company resources to include private messages such as "Have a nice day." in business email sent on company time. 8. Reports sent in to the company by the automatic modem software on your company supplied laptop indicate that you have visited websites which are not approved by CyberSitter, such as the City of SEXton community website. 9. Video surveillance of the Men's Restroom indicates that you have been wasting company resources by using more toilet paper than necessary, in relation to the amount of human waste monitored during your visits. Also, you twice failed to put the toilet seat down, as required by our company policy of sexual sensitivity. 10. Our monitoring of your user access to the company computer system shows that you accessed areas of the system which were not found to be in accordance with your security level. Our records indicate that ViaCrypt owes you $15,000,000.00 for your 1 day(s) of employment. This has been deposited in your Bank Account in Antigua, according to your wishes. Sincerely, (as sincere as a machine can be, that is) ViaCrypt FiringBot

3 3

Re: Pretty Good Piracy
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ryan Anderson wrote: > Okay - the only difference between this and a normal version of PGP is that > it always encrypts to a certain key-id, in addition to all others. > > That's the only weakness you'll see in it. It's the only weakness that's needed to compromise all the keys. > So stop bitching about a feature that business is going to require before > rolling out PGP to the whole enterprise. I don't have any problem with the feature, only with the use of the PGP reputation capital to directly promote it. If they wanted to call it 'Pretty Corporate Privacy' then the name would reflect its purpose. Security, in regard to privacy, is an all-or-nothing issue. As such, I do not find it acceptable to apply the same standards of promotion and dissemination as with less important types of software. The fact of the matter is, the product has nothing to do with the privacy of the individual using it, only the privacy of the corporation. This is an important distincion which should not be subject to confusion with a product by the same name which is noted for providing a secure level of privacy for the individual. I would wager that promoting a false sense of security, or an incorrect view of the levels of security and trust involved in company software will do more damage than the occassional loss of keys will. Again, the product does not provide 'Pretty Good Privacy,' it does provide 'Pretty Corporate Privacy.' PrivacyMonger

1 0

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 ADVERTISEMENT: Proudly Sponsored by the Electronic Forgery Foundation, http://www.eff.com ADVERTISEMENT: Digicash Software - Download Today! http://www.digicrime.com I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{'cyber'} = '<alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = "<remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord ?"; $remailer{'nym'} = '<config(a)nym.alias.net> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"trustme"} = "<trustme(a)trustme.nsa.mil> cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash crack latent cut ek"; $remailer{"squirrel"} = "<mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{'weasel'} = '<config(a)weasel.owl.de> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"reno"} = "<middleman(a)cyberpass.net> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{"cracker"} = "<remailer(a)anon.efga.org> cpunk mix remix pgp hash ksub esub latent cut ek reord post"; $remailer{'redneck'} = '<config(a)anon.efga.org> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"bureau42"} = "<remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org> cpunk mix pgp ksub hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"recovery"} = "<remailer(a)biglouie.fbi.gov> cpunk mix pgp ksub hash latent mon cut ek"; $remailer{"neva"} = "<remailer(a)neva.org> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub ?"; $remailer{"payswell"} = "<remailer(a)digicrime.com> cpunk pgp pgponly launder hash cut mon ksub ?"; $remailer{"lcs"} = "<mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> mix"; $remailer{"medusa"} = "<medusa(a)weasel.owl.de> mix middle" $remailer{"McCain"} = "<mccain(a)notatla.demon.co.uk> mix middle"; $remailer{"valdeez"} = "<valdeez(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"arrid"} = "<arrid(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"hera"} = "<goddesshera(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"mulder"} = "<mulder(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"scully"} = "<scully(a)fox.fbi.gov> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"htuttle"} = "<h_tuttle(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp hash latent cut post ek"; catalyst(a)netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. president(a)whitehouse.gov is _not_ a remailer. usura(a)replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer(a)crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix reno winsock) (weasel squirrel medusa) (cracker redneck) (nym lcs) (valdeez arrid hera mulder scully) The remailer list here has been out of date for some time, but should be up to date now. I'm still working on updating the web page. Last update: Mon 8 Sep 97 6:48:45 PDT remailer email address history latency uptime - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- recovery remailer(a)biglouie.fbi.gov ############ 0:01 99.99% payswell remailer(a)digicrime.com ############ 0:01 99.99% trustme trustme(a)trustme.nsa.mil ************ 0:59 99.99% mulder mulder(a)juno.com #*#*##*#*#*# 0:57 99.98% nym config(a)nym.alias.net ####**+#-## 7:03 99.95% hera goddesshera(a)juno.com ----_.---.. 14:56:18 99.95% cyber alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net *+*****++**+ 11:30 99.93% squirrel mix(a)squirrel.owl.de ----------- 3:17:57 99.83% scully scully(a)fox.fbi.gov +-+-+-+-+-+- 0:57 101.00% valdeez valdeez(a)juno.com -__.-*+*-.- 7:50:19 99.81% winsock winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net -----_..---* 10:10:24 99.81% bureau42 remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org ..--------- 3:33:37 99.31% arrid arrid(a)juno.com -- -------- 7:27:32 99.15% kgbvax remailer(a)kgbvax.demos.su . -- .. --- 99:59:59 19.84% neva remailer(a)neva.org -+*#+*--* # 25:21 98.45% jam remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca + ++++++ 39:06 97.23% cracker remailer(a)anon.efga.org + +++ +++ 28:43 97.10% replay remailer(a)replay.com +**-++ +** 9:49 96.75% redneck config(a)anon.efga.org -*+* ++# 10:58 96.60% reno middleman(a)cyberpass.net ++..+ * -- 2:32:31 84.34% mix mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com **+*++*+ 1:14:29 58.44% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. launder Supports Matt Blaze's Packet-Laundry: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. escrow Provides message backup services to prevent accidental loss. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNDg5r0TMP00JT6s3EQKSngCdF5V1Ecd5ZA3Xa0gYUDHmHaklorAAn2os muMxWPxHj2VmK9uYtACtZhHx =eWmu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Trademarking CypherSpace???
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sigh. A company called I-Planet is trying to trademark the term "Cypherspace", even though we've been using it for a couple of years in the cypherpunk community. They're doing an IPSEC Virtual Private Network, with friendly HTML administration; http://www.i-planet.com/P2cypherpb.html . Looks like interesting stuff, and I wish them luck except in TMing the name :-) I looked on AltaVista and HotBot, and the earliest reference I found was from a 1994 article by Tim May. I'd be interested in finding any earlier refs. There's also a line of comic books using the name, and a Java Applet from 1996, plus references from I-Planet in late 96 and 97. Anybody know if the term's been used in print in the dead-tree press? http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/assorted-short-pieces/may-police-state.txt 05-Oct-94 http://www.pi.net/~mvheezik/cypher.html 20-Dec-96 http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-96.10.17-96.10.23/subject.ht… pointing to David Lesher's article Alice in Cypherspace http://www.insitecomp.com/webdev/java/javasites.htm 7-Dec-96 points to "Cypherspace", a Java Application on a machine I don't seem to be able to reach right now. ============================================================= ==== FROM http://www2.netcom.com/netcom/cypher.html and also ==== http://www.i-planet.com/P2cypherpb.html ======== Introducing i-Planet's CypherSpace As part of the i-Planet Solution product family, CypherSpace allows a company to securely link all of its locations together over the Internet by creating a Virtual Private Network (VPN). This represents an enormous cost savings especially for multinational organizations. ============================================================= Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

7 6

Risks of using usually-reliable information sources in your programs
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been thinking about building remailers and cover-traffic generators, and there's a need for a convenient up-to-date list of remailers. Raph Levien's remailer pinging service is definitely convenient, and even produces some of its output in perl for use by perl programs. However, it's important to be really careful when depending on information like this, e.g. when building it into programs, because otherwise it's easy to trick them into using bogus data, such as the crudely forged article sent to Cypherpunks earlier today. The natural implementation is to pick the more reliable remailers based on "Raph"'s statistics, so adding records for very reliable bogus remailers is a win. The security would be improved if Raph signed the weekly file, but that also requires people using the file to check it with PGP and not just grep out the relevant lines for their programs' use. >X-Sender: stewarts(a)popd.ix.netcom.com >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.3 (32) >Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 18:06:56 -0700 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: Raph Levien <raph(a)CS.Berkeley.EDU> >Subject: List of reliable remailers >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net >Reply-To: Raph Levien <raph(a)CS.Berkeley.EDU> >X-Loop: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >Hash: SHA1 > >ADVERTISEMENT: Proudly Sponsored by the Electronic Forgery Foundation, >http://www.eff.com >ADVERTISEMENT: Digicash Software - Download Today! http://www.digicrime.com > > I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed >information about remailer features and reliability. .... >recovery remailer(a)biglouie.fbi.gov ############ 0:01 99.99% >payswell remailer(a)digicrime.com ############ 0:01 99.99% >trustme trustme(a)trustme.nsa.mil ************ 0:59 99.99% >mulder mulder(a)juno.com #*#*##*#*#*# 0:57 99.98% Thanks! Bill Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com Regular Key PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF 3C85 B884 0ABE 4639

2 1

Unicorn an NSA agent? WAS: New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dre
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Unicorn wrote: > borderline activity. It's hardly a settled point. That you are so quick > to advocate corporate ownership of potentially private e-mail out of hand > and without argument tells us much about your real position, Mr. > Moscaritolo. Three words: "Expectation of Privacy." Unicorn, In that piece of knowledge smashing, just as you do in most of your posts, you again mixed up things to make sure that everybody end up knowing less than when they started. It is peoples like you that ended up with using Expectation of Privacy out of it's rightfull context. Apart from various rulings of various judges that probably smoked various herbs, can you please tell me how anybody can rightfully expect privacy when everything that permits them to exchange information is *owned* by somebody else and that the use of this equipment is there *only* for the activities of the owner of the equipment? If it weren't of the business, the damn computer wouldn't be there. And beside, the employee is not paid to chat with friends, he's paid to work. If he doesn't want to work, just fine, but not on the company's pay... Somehow, you basic premises always blows my mind. I think that you are a *very* dangerous person. I've been watching you for almost three years over Cypherpunks and e$-etc and other forums. Virtually *all* of your posts have this blow-up-their-basic-premises-and-let-them-with-nothing-but-confusion style. Your style shows intelligence and skill in the way you do it, which rules out idiocy on your part. So, clearly, you have an agenda. I cannot help but having the nagging feeling that you're on some three-letter agency payroll because you have the uncanny habit of disrupting and diverting some important discussion. I always wanted to killfile you but always refrained to do so just to be able to read the last finely crafted basic premises-smashing abomination. So, again, which of the three-letter agency sends you a paycheck? Or are you doing is only for a secret decoration? jfa -- Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Finest of Limoges porcelain and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants physicists and engineers, LabView programing. PGP encryption keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 ID# 5B51964D : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

1 0

Re: Trademarking CypherSpace???
by jim＠mentat.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An AltaVista search for "cypherspace" pulls up a Tim May rant on The Coming Police State dated 9 Mar 1994 on the topic, so it's at least 3.5 yrs old. Good historical reading, by the way... dates back to the Clipper era. Don't you hate it when the pessimists are right all the time? Jim Gillogly

1 0

Re:New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dreamed of"
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 03:35:12 -0500 > To: "George F. Mayhew" <mayhem(a)globaldialog.com>, > Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> > Subject: Re:New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dreamed of" > At 10:58 PM 10/3/97 -0500, George F. Mayhew wrote: > >I think PGP, Inc. has seen the need for corporations to monitor their > >transactions at all levels, and responded with a simple, effective > >method that keeps the core applications from becoming compromised, and > >thus less secure. As a private user, this doesn't bother me in the > >least. > > You know, you're right. Transactions at all levels on corporate property > can put the corporation at risk. As a private user, this doesn't bother me > in the least either. I think a simple effective method to prevent > potential liability might be to put video cameras in the restrooms on > corporate facilities. God knows what silliness goes on in there which > might get the company in trouble. Mandatory drug tests? Absolutely. > Seems to me that this is essential. Can't have recreational drug users > hanging around can me. By the way, alchohol is considered a drug by the > company. We'll be screening for that starting Monday. AIDS carriers? We > need to know. Never know when this might cause the corporation > embarassment, or, god forbid, liability. What if the local CPR expert > didn't know that Bill had the HIV virus and tried to preform CPR? Can you > imagine the potential liability? God, what about something more > communicable like TB? No, can't have that. We need access to all our > employee's medical records. Absolutely. > God you frighten me. Unicorn, as usual, you twist words like nobody but you (and a zillions politicians) can. You forget the fact that the association between a company and an individual is voluntary. As long as all the tests and surveillance done by the company is known by the employee, it can do anything it wants. Only, you are also free to find another employer. And in the old days of paper correspondence, what prevented a company to give five years of a given employee's correspondence to the FBI? As a business owner, I wouldn't put cameras in the bathrooms, but I would certainly *require* that an encrypting software be decypherable by the top management. Encryption is an envelope. Sometimes, it is justified that management open suspicious enveloppes. As long as a behaviour doesn't impair work performance, there is no reason to pick on it. And personnally, I'd maybe keep somebody with impaired work capabilities but negociate a pay reduction instead of firing him/her. He is free to find work somewhere. This is *NOT* coercion. Your thing about the cops having access to info is an entirely different story. If the company doesn't have the balls or the strenght to resist bullish tactics, then, it is their problems. The employee should simply have evaluated earlier if the company would sell him out to the first spook and choose to work for somebody else. What you seemed to imply when you wrote that precisionless paragraph is that, in the end, key escrow by the owners of the company and computer system is dangerous. But to the company, not having the possibility to decrypt the data they *own* and are liable for is even more dangerous. The data generated on company's time and pay is property of the company. There is no coercion. Everybody is free to act, find another employee or keep him, find another job or keep it. Period. Ciao jfa P.S. For which one of three-letter organization do you work Unicorn? -- Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Finest of Limoges porcelain and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants physicists and engineers, LabView programing. PGP encryption keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 ID# 5B51964D : 152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

1 0

Re: Unicorn an NSA agent? WAS: New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dre
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:41 PM 10/5/97 -0500, jf_avon(a)citenet.net wrote: >Unicorn wrote: > >> borderline activity. It's hardly a settled point. That you are so quick >> to advocate corporate ownership of potentially private e-mail out of hand >> and without argument tells us much about your real position, Mr. >> Moscaritolo. Three words: "Expectation of Privacy." I missed the original post, but here are my $0.02. I encrypt all outgoing encrypted work email to my own key as well. I would be just as happy to encrypt it to the corporate key. If I was to send some private email from work, something that is not frowned upon at my place of employment, I would simply pre-encrypt it with just the key of the recipient. Meanwhile, I can understand the desire of a company to be able to read old outgoing email even after the employee quit or forgot their passphrase. After all, it might contain valuable information about details surrounding past negotiations with clients. Information that I would not want to be without. And PGP's Policy Enforcer has another side to it: have you ever forgotten to encrypt email that should have been encrypted? I have. With the Policy Enforcer installed, that can't happen. Which may well save big hassles in the future. All IMHO, of course. --Lucky Green <shamrock(a)netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. DES is dead! Please join in breaking RC5-56. http://rc5.distributed.net/

1 0

Re: Unicorn an NSA agent? WAS: New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dre
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I'm not on cypherpunks anymore, anyone there who wants to put me through the wringer without having to endure my response might not want to CC: me.] At 10:41 PM 10/5/97 -0500, jf_avon(a)citenet.net wrote: >Unicorn wrote: > >> borderline activity. It's hardly a settled point. That you are so quick >> to advocate corporate ownership of potentially private e-mail out of hand >> and without argument tells us much about your real position, Mr. >> Moscaritolo. Three words: "Expectation of Privacy." > >Unicorn, > >In that piece of knowledge smashing, just as you do in most >of your posts, you again mixed up things to make sure that everybody >end up knowing less than when they started. > >It is peoples like you that ended up with using Expectation of >Privacy out of it's rightfull context. Apart from various rulings of >various judges that probably smoked various herbs, can you please >tell me how anybody can rightfully expect privacy when everything >that permits them to exchange information is *owned* by somebody else >and that the use of this equipment is there *only* for the activities >of the owner of the equipment? Remember when the phone company used to lease you your phone? Surely that doesn't make the data that goes over the phone their property? If my doctor calls me at work with the results of a critical test, you believe that data is no longer private? I hope not. You think whatever goes on in a rental car I drive is the property of the rental company? That if some company rented the car they are entitled to read whatever papers I have in there? What about a hotel? A leased apartment? A restraunt back room? I challenge the "ownership gives the owner the right to all that occurs or is produced on or in the property" premise because it is just not a valid one, legally or (in my opinion) ethically. >If it weren't of the business, the >damn computer wouldn't be there. I know of many companies, consulting, law firms, accounting firms, in which employees own their own machines, laptops for example, or PDAs. Even where this is not the case, I still resist the premise that ownership of a computer translates to ownership of all the data thereon. I'm sure hackers would love it if they got title to all the data they download. Unfortunately for this position it just doesn't work that way, nor should it. I suppose ISPs could take the position that encrypted data on their systems must also be encrypted with the ISPs root key. Are you telling me you'd not have a problem with that because the ISP owns all the data on its systems? >And beside, the employee is not >paid to chat with friends, he's paid to work. If he doesn't want to >work, just fine, but not on the company's pay... Actually, most large modern firms I'm familiar with approve of and expect some degree of personal business to be transacted in the work place. Some even state this explicitly in their corporate policies and define the level of personal business that is appropriate. Never have I seen one which insists that no personal business of any kind is to be tolerated. I doubt such a firm would have a reasonable retention rate either. >Somehow, you basic premises always blows my mind. I think that you >are a *very* dangerous person. I think I might take that as a compliment coming from someone who advocates the kind of data ownership views that you seem to. I hope to be thought of as dangerous by those kind of entities. >I've been watching you for almost >three years over Cypherpunks and e$-etc and other forums. >Virtually *all* of your posts have this >blow-up-their-basic-premises-and-let-them-with-nothing-but-confusion >style. Blame law school. If my position on this issue makes me some kind of troublemaker, you better point the same finger at Schneier, who (if quoted accurately) shares my view. >Your style shows intelligence and skill in the way you do >it, which rules out idiocy on your part. So, clearly, you have >an agenda I do. Unimparied privacy for individuals in all contexts. Now tell me how PGP5.5 contributes to that cause, particularly in the current political climate. The timing looks extremely suspect to me. Challenging the premise that corporates own the flesh and mind of every employee within the walls of their facilities doesn't really strike me as something pro-estlablishment or bearing the hallmarks of some sinister plot, unless perhaps one is on a law-enforcement or far right corporate-facist spectrum. P2, the italian corporate-facist movement, held similar views after the second world war, so your ideas are not new. My view is, however, that this is the wrong way for the world to progress. If beliving that employees don't sell their souls to large corporations because they accept their paychecks is evil, call me evil. At the same time I beleve that companies don't tell their soul to a given government just because they do business on a given "soil." This strikes me as consistant. Perhaps you will disagree. >I cannot help but having the nagging feeling that you're on some >three-letter agency payroll because you have the uncanny habit of >disrupting and diverting some important discussion. If correcting legal errors, highlighting the flaws in basic premises and pointing out general gaps in logic, which is what I think I've been doing for the many years I've been poking around on c'punks an elsewhere, is disrupting and diverting, perhaps the "important discussions" are on the wrong tact. Glazing over the messy details of any policy, which seems to be what your "disrupting and diverting some important discussion" clause is advocating, is a rather sly tactic really. "If all these privacy extremists would just shut up about the details of our plan, we could get something done without diversion and distraction." Sound familiar? Always look at those calling for silence with suspicion. >I always wanted >to killfile you but always refrained to do so just to be able to read >the last finely crafted basic premises-smashing abomination. Actually, I don't even usually proofread my stuff. I'm pleased it gives you the impression of some fine craftsmanship, or bears the indications of some grand conspiracy, but in reality its off the top of my head. The consistancy you see is probably because I don't waiver in my principles when it comes to privacy. >So, again, which of the three-letter agency sends you a paycheck? Clearly, any answer I deliver to this question only harms me. I've seen this trick before. >Or are you doing is only for a secret decoration? What kind of decoration? Are you offering me one? (Aside from "Snide Asshole Lawyer of the Year" or something I mean).

1 0

Internet Kiosk New Revenue For ISP
by netpecker＠freemanchester.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attention Internet Service Provides. NetPecker Inc. is now making a limited time offering for distributors of following equipment NetPecker VM4100 a free standing Internet terminal / kiosk ideal for shopping malls, hotel lobbies, restaurants, etc. Advertise your Internet service and collect cash at the same time. Cash and informational terminal / kiosk now available. Purchase lease options. Retail starting price $4995.00. Benefits: New revenues, leverage your infrastructure, increased name recognition. For more information visit: http://www.netpecker.com or return e-mail: ispinfo(a)netpecker.com

1 0

No Subject
by shiatan＠workline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

F <shiatan(a)workline.com> R <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> (remote destination) X - Start Received: by soi.hyperchat.com id 017b00 at Mon, 06 Oct 1997 13:59:36 -600 (Mountain Daylight Time) Message-ID: <34394257.1CF8(a)workline.com> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 1997 15:56:07 -0400 From: shiatan <shiatan(a)workline.com> X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Zip drive security... Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I was wondering if anyone can comment on what type of encryption is used for the passwords on zip disks..i've been seperated from the literature that came with it, but i seem to remember reading that the actual password info is kept in the hardware? and i was just wondering how secure it was (before you encrypt the information on the disk with your own encryption methods).. thanks..

1 0

Sameer Parekh and C2Net offer a $50,000 reward for the killing of Zionist Vulis
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Allah akbar! God is great! Sameer Parekh and C2Net have placed a $50,000 contract on the life of the miserable Zionist Dimitri Vulis residing at: 67-67 Burns St Forest Hills, NY 11375 U.S. of A. Sameer Parekh is the official supplier of cryprographic software to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas. Death to the Zionist aggressors! Death to Vulis! God is great!

1 0

Re: New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dreamed of"
by Bill Frantz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:52 AM -0700 10/3/97, Robert Hettinga wrote: >Comments? > >From: Martin Minow <minow(a)apple.com> >"The new version also includes some of the most sophisticated techniques >for enforcing this policy through the corporation. The most novel may be a >new version of software controlling a company's SMTP server, the machine >that acts as the central mailroom for a corporation. PGP provides a >software agent that will read all of the mail to make sure that it complies >with the corporate policy. This may include requiring all messages to be >signed with digital signatures or include a backdoor that the management >can use to read the message. If the software agent discovers a message >violates the policy, it can either return it to sender or simply log a copy. I wonder if it can handle the following: (1) Encrypt real message (e.g. use PGP or Entrust). (1a) Strip the headers. (2) UUEncode the message. (3) Encrypt the message with the corporate system including CAK. (4) Send it thru the SMTP server. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Internal surveillance | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | helped make the USSR the | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | nation it is today. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Sameer Parekh and C2Net offer a $50,000 reward for the killing of Zionist Vulis
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: > Allah akbar! God is great! Sameer Parekh and C2Net have placed a $50,000 > contract on the life of the miserable Zionist Dimitri Vulis residing at: > 67-67 Burns St > Forest Hills, NY 11375 > U.S. of A. > Sameer Parekh is the official supplier of cryprographic software to the > Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas. This would explain the "Infidel Inside!" sticker on the Stronghold software packaging. > Death to the Zionist aggressors! Death to Vulis! God is great!

1 0

Transmission Management
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Lucky Green wrote: >And PGP's Policy Enforcer has another side to it: have you ever >forgotten to encrypt email that should have been encrypted? I >have. With the Policy Enforcer installed, that can't happen. Which >may well save big hassles in the future. (This feature is independent of the GAK aspects of the product.) It's probably a good idea to set up your mailer so that it discourages transmission of unencrypted mail. This could be as simple as a sequence of questions: "Do you want to do this?", "Do you really want to do this?", and "Are you absolutely one hundred percent sure that it is a good idea to put this message on tape at Fort Meade for eternity?" But, you could make more amusing warnings. For example, the mailer could convert your message into a front page article for the New York Times and show you what it will look like. Agencies which handle encrypted communications typically track every message sent. We should do the same thing. Most people probably do this in an informal way, but really slick tools for doing this would have their uses. This is especially true when managing an identity. Not only would it be nice to track every transmission in a nice easy to assess way, but also track exactly how it was transmitted, the precise time of transmission, and the remailers used to deliver it. This raw information would be neat to have, but it wouldn't get really useful without an analysis tool. For instance, you could see how much your identity depends on the security of certain remailers. If you use one remailer in your chains a lot, you might want to have something which warns you that you are becoming overly dependent on that remailer. Or, you might want to run "what if" scenarios to see if you would be vulnerable if a particular set of remailers were compromised. If the analysis tool were really good, it would hunt for weaknesses based on known remailer attacks. And, naturally, for proper identity management it would be important to keep a running score for the odds that each identity were compromised and by which threats. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNDh0V5aWtjSmRH/5AQFyFwf+OhIbig7B/njU1yTlDdIuBHs3jpYyH6Ol /+Cjk9X2MbFkYGec3vm8muf1alGI/8ZH+NV73cXry1rN8FqdIY/eoJX5OoRhTQpa ajQFNnSaufbY2xgx45o7S+jFCFGaasInjsvl7q78iH8JL2seXgG3t7HNsK/SZOqD lZynyUqCaVssiSTkDHiZx72TUPJbhUCOvkoKdiy5evQlN7PPyKNmajB9INbzin7z qKqfyyHyFR+Gu618IojassyZ9wuEzbjMStTRMf8TGOo8yJWaH0+W7KX9JHVF3Zdv EjINSw7EBxMAOk83AY9YP0nuLJnwaEoloKifX6D+MmQ+Jx9Js2ocuA== =HUZ7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Unicorn an NSA agent? WAS: New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dre
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Black Unicorn wrote: >Remember when the phone company used to lease you your phone? Surely >that doesn't make the data that goes over the phone their property? >If my doctor calls me at work with the results of a critical test, >you believe that data is no longer private? I hope not. You think >whatever goes on in a rental car I drive is the property of the >rental company? That if some company rented the car they are >entitled to read whatever papers I have in there? What about a >hotel? A leased apartment? A restraunt back room? I challenge the >"ownership gives the owner the right to all that occurs or is >produced on or in the property" premise because it is just not a >valid one, legally or (in my opinion) ethically. Mr. Avon is talking about agreements, I believe, although he is using the private property approach to argue that there is certainly a meeting of the minds between the two parties. It seems reasonable that employees may agree to give up their rights, for example their inalienable right to stay at home and watch TV, in exchange for employment. When the employment agreement is at will, as most are, it seems reasonable that the company may change it whenever it pleases: "If you wish to continue working here, you will have to let the company read your mail." This is complicated by the bizarre legal environment which employers face in the United States. In practice one would have difficulty terminating an employee by changing the "at will" agreement. More generally, it seems a good guess that Mr. Avon would not object to an agreement with a company in which the company was able to continuously monitor the employees communications or activities. (This is why the private property approach can confuse people: this is not the core issue.) >[I'm not on cypherpunks anymore, anyone there who wants to put me >through the wringer without having to endure my response might not >want to CC: me.] Guess you miss out, then. ;-) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNDh325aWtjSmRH/5AQFfWwf/RfjQ38YvvqNAxkcSTWKhFM09fySjgCvG PlSrimP30jC/dWHAH3iZavS5fn8LE+rfHSHBy5UZyE6xyuyAsJHpMYXDjoQ7gMau vKWHCPCKoxNoi/UNFJ6FQXAEy3o+nBp1pRVupOr/gGFaegCd0tglEyzxCEiFguOf utUGX2X7C5wK2Lwhe+lVJqqlvzkwLXt9UKYzanJc8LZmlAjmcmrPySXC+KSnvfve YHGGqD6+jxxqNxqRVpvCpO4JeJ8O+95O3oCxrOKg7b5SwtOo21qnxkBkFNGyuTq9 YGzQJs/0Ha8Gr9Vk+QiT5CjUAdw+N/uahaPkNWjf1f4SztKpz3y0ZA== =FlvU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

MISTY encryption
by Nobuki Nakatuji 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

MISTY Misty is a cryptographic algorithm developed by Mitsubishi Electric after they broke DES in 1994.It is designed to withstand linear and differential cryptanalysis, but has not yet been cryptanalysed. As it has not undergoneintensive peer review, the usual caution is recommended. It is being considered for inclusion into the SET 2.0 standard. http://www.mach5.com/crypto/algorithms.html ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Moderation Revisionism (Try to forget!)
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Those who are so quick to act as apologists for the C2Nut blitzkreig on the anarchistic freedom of the CypherPunks list forget that by the end of the 'moderation experiment,' the mailing list had lost an estimated 6 million Jewish subscribers. It is likely that we would have lost even more, had it not been for the valiant efforts of Dimitri Vulis to warn us about murdering Armenian bastards in our midst. When the Johnboot of Fascism descended on the CypherPunks mailing list, the evil Dr. Sandfort was given free reign to do bizarre experiments with twin mailing lists, severing parts of toad.com's electronic brain into seperate sections, and producing a mutant clone which was passed off as the original entity. Unfortunately, the Electronic DNA of the mutant strain of the list was not stable, and began to disintegrate, resulting in a denigration of the mutant list body to the point where parts of its electronic body began to become corrupted, even falling completely off, at times. After the nuking of toad.com and Nagasaki, the list CypherSpace was divided up among the winners, with the Eastern Block under control of Comrade Chewd-Off, the Western Block was apparently liberated under the flag of InfoNex (although their ties to the C2Nut secret government remain in place), and Texas, as always, remained a seperate CypherPunk nation just south of Intel, with Commander in Chief Choate launching a bandwidth race to keep ahead of the Eastern Block. Currently there are calls for crypto disarmament coming from the peace-loving folks in DC, in the interests of making the world a safer place, but they are meeting resistance from crypto-guerillas who refuse to recognize that the war is over and it is time for us to ask, "Why can't we all just get along (a long toilet plunger and shove it up somebody's ass)." DigiCash remained neutral during the moderation experiment and denies that they are in possession of large sums of eca$h left with them for safekeeping by the missing Jewish members of the mailing list. There have been rumors that many of the leaders of the attack on the CypherPunks list escaped to Anguilla, a small island in the Caribbean, where they plotted an even greater conspiracy to take over all of cryptography by seizing control of the financial cryptography arena, but Herr Hettinga claims that it was simply a meeting of the Bavarian Illuminati. He denies any claim that there were closed meetings in which a secret alliance was formed with the Japanese, but recent activity by Jochi Ito has led many to suspect that this is indeed the case. In my private meetings with the remaining members of the CypherPunks mailing lists, each of them confirmed that they are members of one three-letter organization or another, although most of them continue to deny it in public. Kent Crispin and Phillip Hallam-Baker asked me to please not blow their 'covers,' so I will not comment on them directly. I hope that this clears things up for everybody. Now just try to forget all about it. RevisionMonger

1 0

Re: Unicorn an NSA agent? WAS: New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dre
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Lucky Green wrote: >Meanwhile, I can understand the desire of a company to be able to >read old outgoing email even after the employee quit or forgot their >passphrase. After all, it might contain valuable information about >details surrounding past negotiations with clients. Information that >I would not want to be without. I have never seen or even heard of an instance where it was necessary to go through an employee's electronic mail. Has anybody else ever witnessed such a situation? While we can construct hypothetical circumstances, in practice the need for this feature is rare. What, then, are some sources of the (alleged) demand? 1. PGP is preparing to compromise with The Great Satan, and to have a viable company after The Fall. 2. Secure software is becoming perceived as naughty. Given the insecure legal and regulatory environment in which companies operate, a perception as a naughty company can be expensive. 2.1 Drug testing is an example of similar behavior. In practice, few companies implement an effective drug testing program. External image, then, is the likely motivation. 3. Many companies have a corporate culture of dominance over their employees. This is yet another way of expressing their perceived position. (Perceived, that is, by the employees and the employers, but not perhaps by outsiders.) 3.1 Common drug testing techniques have sado-sexual overtones. 4. Companies may not wish to have their right to read employee mail challenged. (Were employees to commonly protect their mail from employers, the common practice could, in time, be transformed into a right, regardless of contractual agreements.) Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNDhuUZaWtjSmRH/5AQFflAf5AWr65whT2ZM9yzaHxs5lX9ViocBCqr6A O+1FG/2xPzk+o4hf9zeXMTThyKu+iQ5NgcCWd+ocRRPwIsIB3TJuAmxBJ2tgLISZ dqtgDkEyXmoD4Mq+ALpNy0wcJ0Z/q1LUhZErm6gGOPGhkVeVTn8Gscj+qDHJPu2M ji8/9v8pjYRKe1BsS8ZJlirNwMdC5Use6Ig/Z3uOHmEcnMh+jeZmbAyLcGupNzd9 hjh/q7hThyEIN7v5mJVjg16oXJ0ryN1SkbIvnMimx8b8dYs47z5C5HaUZYX2CZDc XicfmAv5w+Y87dE7HQh9hKmOH36c2Ajfw0hdbQTxWWkFmPys6hDdvQ== =cJtj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Pretty Good Piracy
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/5/97 6:37 PM, Anonymous (nobody(a)REPLAY.COM) passed this wisdom: >Ryan Anderson wrote: >> Okay - the only difference between this and a normal version of >> PGP is that it always encrypts to a certain key-id, in addition >> to all others. >> >> That's the only weakness you'll see in it. > >It's the only weakness that's needed to compromise all the keys. It seems to me that it should not necessarily compromise all keys, though it does in effect provide for a goodly number of 'known plaintext' objects. Could some of our hardcore crypto experts comment on IDEA's susceptability to known plaintext which then provides 'plaintext' to the DH/DSS or RSA keys and what is their susceptability to 'known plaintext' It occured to me while proofreading the above that in effect a digitally signed cleartext document provides 'known plaintext' every time its used, since the SHA-1/MD-5 can be computed the hash is a 'known plaintext' on the DH/DSS and RSA keys ... is this one of the reasons for the two key types in PGP5 ??? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNDgmJcdZgC62U/gIEQIvgwCg/kybc9ons3ji3cbi9jtSnQ3kptkAn3IC 90pwzjjpt2qqhpjn8VRlrOGR =IIkE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "Never ask what sort of computer a guy drives. If he's a Mac user, he'll tell you. If not, why embarrass him?" - Tom Clancy

3 2

Zergo Report
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Adam Back and Ross Anderson the full Zergo Report on encryption use by the NHSnet is online at: http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/ukcrypto/zergo.html (139K) There may be action by HMG to prohibit publication in the UK (and maybe elsewhere) so we've mirrored it at: http://jya.com/zergo-aba.htm Other mirrors encouraged.

3 2

C2Net offers Vulis $100,000 for not talking about Stronghold
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sameer Parekh called Dmitry Vulis on the phone today and offered him $100,000 if Vulis promises not to publicize the security flows that Vulis has found in Stronghold, C2Net's only remaining product.

3 2

List of reliable remailers
by Raph Levien 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I operate a remailer pinging service which collects detailed information about remailer features and reliability. To use it, just finger remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu There is also a Web version of the same information, plus lots of interesting links to remailer-related resources, at: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/remailer-list.html This information is used by premail, a remailer chaining and PGP encrypting client for outgoing mail. For more information, see: http://www.c2.org/~raph/premail.html For the PGP public keys of the remailers, finger pgpkeys(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu This is the current info: REMAILER LIST This is an automatically generated listing of remailers. The first part of the listing shows the remailers along with configuration options and special features for each of the remailers. The second part shows the 12-day history, and average latency and uptime for each remailer. You can also get this list by fingering remailer-list(a)kiwi.cs.berkeley.edu. $remailer{'cyber'} = '<alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net> alpha pgp'; $remailer{"mix"} = "<mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut ek ksub reord ?"; $remailer{"replay"} = "<remailer(a)replay.com> cpunk mix pgp hash latent cut post ek"; $remailer{"jam"} = "<remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek"; $remailer{"winsock"} = "<winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub reord ?"; $remailer{'nym'} = '<config(a)nym.alias.net> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"squirrel"} = "<mix(a)squirrel.owl.de> cpunk mix pgp pgponly hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{'weasel'} = '<config(a)weasel.owl.de> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"reno"} = "<middleman(a)cyberpass.net> cpunk mix pgp hash middle latent cut ek reord ?"; $remailer{"cracker"} = "<remailer(a)anon.efga.org> cpunk mix remix pgp hash ksub esub latent cut ek reord post"; $remailer{'redneck'} = '<config(a)anon.efga.org> newnym pgp'; $remailer{"bureau42"} = "<remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org> cpunk mix pgp ksub hash latent cut ek"; $remailer{"neva"} = "<remailer(a)neva.org> cpunk pgp pgponly hash cut ksub ?"; $remailer{"lcs"} = "<mix(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu> mix"; $remailer{"medusa"} = "<medusa(a)weasel.owl.de> mix middle" $remailer{"McCain"} = "<mccain(a)notatla.demon.co.uk> mix middle"; $remailer{"valdeez"} = "<valdeez(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"arrid"} = "<arrid(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"hera"} = "<goddesshera(a)juno.com> cpunk pgp pgponly hash ek"; $remailer{"htuttle"} = "<h_tuttle(a)rigel.cyberpass.net> cpunk pgp hash latent cut post ek"; catalyst(a)netcom.com is _not_ a remailer. lmccarth(a)ducie.cs.umass.edu is _not_ a remailer. usura(a)replay.com is _not_ a remailer. remailer(a)crynwr.com is _not_ a remailer. There is no remailer at relay.com. Groups of remailers sharing a machine or operator: (cyber mix reno winsock) (weasel squirrel medusa) (cracker redneck) (nym lcs) (valdeez arrid hera) The remailer list here has been out of date for some time, but should be up to date now. I'm still working on updating the web page. Last update: Mon 6 Oct 97 6:46:39 PDT remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- nym config(a)nym.alias.net ##*+#*#**### :42 99.99% redneck config(a)anon.efga.org *###+***##** 1:33 99.98% cracker remailer(a)anon.efga.org ++++++**++*+ 17:20 99.97% cyber alias(a)alias.cyberpass.net ++******+++* 11:30 99.96% jam remailer(a)cypherpunks.ca ++***++++++* 22:36 99.89% winsock winsock(a)rigel.cyberpass.net -.-----..-- 9:58:11 99.68% mix mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com + -***+++++* 52:53 99.65% replay remailer(a)replay.com ** * ****** 3:36 99.57% squirrel mix(a)squirrel.owl.de ----------- 3:06:27 99.44% neva remailer(a)neva.org --**-***+ + 1:15:50 99.17% reno middleman(a)cyberpass.net - + ++++ * 36:51 98.65% hera goddesshera(a)juno.com ---- ------- 4:34:09 97.76% bureau42 remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org --- ------- 3:15:49 97.49% arrid arrid(a)juno.com - . ---- 10:06:05 79.88% valdeez valdeez(a)juno.com 4:58:22 -16.56% History key * # response in less than 5 minutes. * * response in less than 1 hour. * + response in less than 4 hours. * - response in less than 24 hours. * . response in more than 1 day. * _ response came back too late (more than 2 days). cpunk A major class of remailers. Supports Request-Remailing-To: field. eric A variant of the cpunk style. Uses Anon-Send-To: instead. penet The third class of remailers (at least for right now). Uses X-Anon-To: in the header. pgp Remailer supports encryption with PGP. A period after the keyword means that the short name, rather than the full email address, should be used as the encryption key ID. hash Supports ## pasting, so anything can be put into the headers of outgoing messages. ksub Remailer always kills subject header, even in non-pgp mode. nsub Remailer always preserves subject header, even in pgp mode. latent Supports Matt Ghio's Latent-Time: option. cut Supports Matt Ghio's Cutmarks: option. post Post to Usenet using Post-To: or Anon-Post-To: header. ek Encrypt responses in reply blocks using Encrypt-Key: header. special Accepts only pgp encrypted messages. mix Can accept messages in Mixmaster format. reord Attempts to foil traffic analysis by reordering messages. Note: I'm relying on the word of the remailer operator here, and haven't verified the reord info myself. mon Remailer has been known to monitor contents of private email. filter Remailer has been known to filter messages based on content. If not listed in conjunction with mon, then only messages destined for public forums are subject to filtering. Raph Levien

1 0

Re: russia_1.html
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Harka <root@DosLinux> > US Sees No KGB Role in Russia's Nuclear Arms > > WASHINGTON (Reuter) - The United States Friday rejected the claim of a > Russian scientist that Moscow had secretly developed nuclear "suitcase > bombs" under KGB orders in the 1970s specifically for terrorist > purposes. > >[...] > > Testifying before Congress Thursday, Alexei Yablokov, a respected > scientist who served on the Russian National Security Council, > contradicted statements by Russian officials denying the existence of > the weapons and buttressed claims that many of them have gone missing. > > "I am absolutely sure that they have been made," he told the House > Military Research and Development subcommittee. > > The issue arose when former Russian National Security Adviser Alexandr > Lebed alleged that up to 100 portable suitcase-sized bombs were > unaccounted for since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union. > > According to Lebed, who has agreed to testify before the House > committee later this month, the devices have an explosive capacity of > one kiloton -- the equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT -- can be activated > by a single person and could kill as many as 100,000 people. > > Yablokov said he had spoken to the scientists who worked on the > weapons and so was certain of their existence. [...] I saw part of this on CSPAN. Yablokov made one point that I felt was interesting. These devices were made during the Cold War period, and it's extremely unlikely that any could have been made since the Soviet Union fell apart. The plutonium cores of thermonuclear devices have a limited shelf life - he claimed 6 years, which jibes with what I've heard from other open sources. Fission products build up in the cores which can poison a chain reaction. Thus all Pu based devices need to have the cores periodically removed and replaced with new ones, while the old ones have to go through a non-trivial reprocessing stage to remove the fission products. Thus, a nuke left on the shelf eventually turns into a dud. The time since the Soviet Union fell (which is the upper limit of the last time these particular 'suitcases' could plausibly have been repacked) is long enough ago that they are now either duds or becoming unreliable (I don't know if the degredation results in gradually decreasing yield, or if one day they simply don't work). Of course, even contaminated Pu in the hands of a terrorist (or a State) is a disquieting notion. Peter Trei trei(a)Process.com

4 3

"Discount Classified Newspaper ADS.....as low as $1 per paper"
by 99507504＠32517.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"><FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE=3> UTILIZE THIS VALUABLE INFORMATION AND IT WILL PAY FOR ITSELF MANY TIMES OVER! That tiny little ad can make you wealthy! Have you ever bought anything from a classified ad? If you're like most, the answer is yes. It's a fact of life, that we as a society crave the need for information. The tiny little classified ad can effectively and efficiently deliver the information to a potential customer base that is mind boggling. A simple classified ad can fill your mailbox with orders or make your phone ring off the hook with interested prospects. Have you ever seen the same ad running over and over again in a paper? It's because it's making money. In fact the chances are good that it's in a whole lot of other papers also. Classified ads can and have made many people very wealthy. How do you think all those late night info-mercial millionaires started? ***Nationwide Newspapers V2.0 TM*** Powerful New Reference Software - The First of its Kind, Classified Advertising Tool! - Electronic Directory of over 3,600 newspapers! - Sources for Over 6,000 newspapers! - Daily, Weekly, Shoppers, Community Papers and More! - Find Hard to Reach People to Respond to Your Offer! - Advertise by City, State, Regionally, or Nationwide! - Statewide and Network Advertising, Including Pricing! - Discount Advertising Less Than $1 Per Paper! - Powerful Tool for Building Huge Downlines! - Save Time and Money with Network Advertising, 1 Call, 1 Payment & you're in 100's of Papers with Millions of Readers, at a Big Discount Over Individual Rates! SPECIAL FEATURE- Built in Sort Tool Enables Sorts by State, City, Circulation, Phone Number & More! Proof is in the Results! Here's just a few: " Thank you for your 3,600+ newspaper directory! We have built a downline of 1,800 people in 6 months & a check for over $12,000 using this directory to advertise! It contains the small town papers as well as the big ones so we can target the audience & stretch our advertising dollar. I recommend it for anyone in network marketing." S & J Linden, Sequim, WA " I just wanted to let you know how much your program has saved me time and energy, now I can place ads with ease. I think your program is simply one that anyone who has a business must have, because time is money." Andrea Hurst-Harry, Arlington, TX There is no doubt that this information can and will be a valuable asset to your business. It's the perfect product, at the perfect time, at the perfect price. We've seen similar information costing 100's of dollars. Companies charge these high fees because they know that people who understand the value of the information will easily pay for it. Our products are more advanced and we make them affordable. They say that information is power, well we look forward to supplying you with all the power you need for years to come! Price: Other companies marketing half the information we offer are charging $249 For a limited time , You pay only $59 plus shipping for this revolutionary new product. To Order Send to: Strawberry Press 732.744.9633 518-7 Old Post Rd Suite 211 Edison, NJ 08817 ***Please Add $6 for shipping and handling Name:_________________________________________ Address:______________________________________EMail Address___________________________ City:_____________________State:____Zip:______ Payment Method: __CHECK __MONEY ORDER Total Enclosed: $_79 + 6 =$85 _____________ </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3>

1 0

The rumors ARE true
by bob17＠bigfoot.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi If you follow business journals you may have heard about a new phone company that has patent pending technology that will revolutionize the the way we communicate. They are using technology that allows us to use our existing phones in a manner similar to the the way we communicate on the internet now. This is causing the long distance rates to tumble to low prices that have been unheard of before this. What's more this new technology will eventually allow us to offer an unlimited usage low flat rate plan as well as being able to have up to 8 phones, computers or fax machines all working off of one phone line at the same time. All this without having to purchase any new phones or equipment. This technology is so advanced that the Richard Marriott family of Marriot Hotels has invested 74 Million Dollars in the company for just a 38% interest in the company. If you would like more information on the service or business opportunity with this new company just send an e-mail to" mailto:bob17@bigfoot.com" with the words"the rumors are true" and I will send you information right away. Sincerely, Bob phone (847) 462-1937 e-mail mailto:bob17@bigfoot.com

1 0

New Zealand encryption rolled by Microsoft
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: "Blair Anderson" <blair(a)technologist.com> To: "dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu" <dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu> Date: Mon, 06 Oct 97 10:07:45 +1300 Priority: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: New Zealand encryption rolled by Microsoft Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Blair Anderson" <blair(a)technologist.com> New Zealand encryption rolled by Microsoft.. Despite adopting a succesfull crypto protocol ex Switzerland, Microsoft has been succesful in "converting" the local banks to its "built in" scheme.. details at.. http://www.aardvark.co.nz/n296.htm Cheers, Blair Anderson (Blair(a)technologist.com) International Consultant in Electronic Commerce, Encryption and Electronic Rights Management "Techno Junk and Grey Matter" (HTTP://WWW.ISDN.NOW.CO.NZ) 50 Wainoni Road, Christchurch, New Zealand phone 64 3 3894065 fax 64 3 3894065 Member Digital Commerce Society of Boston ---------------------------- Caught in the Net for 25 years ---------------------------- For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request(a)ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". --- 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/ Ask me about FC98 in Anguilla!: <http://www.fc98.ai/>

1 0

Re: Unicorn an NSA agent? WAS: New PGP "Everything the FBI eve
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Via e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com > To: jf_avon(a)citenet.net, e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com, cypherpunks(a)algebra.com > From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> > Subject: Re: Unicorn an NSA agent? WAS: New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dre > Remember when the phone company used to lease you your phone? Surely that > doesn't make the data that goes over the phone their property? Duhhh! Typical Unicornish answer: completely out of context. The agreement with the phone company is to provide you with a service, while the agreement with the employer is for you to devote your time to his cause. Buy doing personnal activities outside of certain accepted ones, you defraud him. Did you indulge into calling your girlfriend in Tokyo while in your office? Did you get a pat in the back from your boss? > Actually, most large modern firms I'm familiar with approve of and expect > some degree of personal business to be transacted in the work place. Some > even state this explicitly in their corporate policies and define the level > of personal business that is appropriate. Never have I seen one which > insists that no personal business of any kind is to be tolerated. I doubt > such a firm would have a reasonable retention rate either. Duhhh ^2 But does that precludes the requirement by the company that all e-mail pertaining to company activities be decryptable by them? > I think I might take that as a compliment coming from someone who advocates > the kind of data ownership views that you seem to. I hope to be thought > of as dangerous by those kind of entities. Duhhh ^3 I did not said it, you did. If you want to have a vague idea of my idea of property, just refer to Ayn Rand philosophy for a close enough explanation. > >I've been watching you for almost > >three years over Cypherpunks and e$-etc and other forums. > >Virtually *all* of your posts have this > >blow-up-their-basic-premises-and-let-them-with-nothing-but-confusion > >style. > > Blame law school. You are almost absolved. :-) This anti-knowledge way of interacting is unfortunately widely thaught. But from the moment you realize it, it becomes a sin again... :-) > If my position on this issue makes me some kind of troublemaker, you better > point the same finger at Schneier, who (if quoted accurately) shares my view. > > >Your style shows intelligence and skill in the way you do > >it, which rules out idiocy on your part. So, clearly, you have > >an agenda > > I do. Unimparied privacy for individuals in all contexts. Now tell me how > PGP5.5 contributes to that cause, particularly in the current political > climate. I have no idea because I did not look at it. Only, from a business standpoint, it doesn't only makes sense to be able to decrypt employees data, it is a sine qua none condition for the implementation of encryption at corporate level. IMNSHO. > The timing looks extremely suspect to me. Challenging the > premise that corporates own the flesh and mind of every employee within the > walls of their facilities doesn't really strike me as something > pro-estlablishment Double talk. I never said it *owns* the employees, I said it owns the *means* of communication and, as per mutual agreement between employee and employer, the employee's time. The employee AND the employer are, most of the time, free to walk out anytime. > My view is, however, that > this is the wrong way for the world to progress. If beliving that > employees don't sell their souls to large corporations because they accept > their paychecks is evil, call me evil. Accepting a paycheck has nothing to do with selling your soul, it is a contractual agreement. You have to fullfill it. It is based on good faith. > At the same time I beleve that > companies don't tell their soul to a given government just because they do > business on a given "soil." There is a large part of happenstance in this. Doing business with the Nazis is an extreme and many condemned it. Doing business within the USA is another thing. > If correcting legal errors, I admit you do often. > highlighting the flaws in basic premises and pointing out general gaps in logic, > which is what I think I've been doing > for the many years I've been poking around on c'punks an elsewhere, is Oh, but I do not question that you act. Only, your pretended basic premises and the end result and general philosophy conveyed by most of your comments simply do not match you pretended agenda. >The > consistancy you see is probably because I don't waiver in my principles > when it comes to privacy. At least, we have something in common! :-) jfa Jean-Francois Avon, Montreal QC Canada "One of theses centuries, the brutes, private or public, who believe that they can rule their betters by force, will learn the lesson of what happens when brute force encounters mind and force." - Ragnar Danneskjold PGP key at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

1 0

Gestapo wants to police the Internet
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

US Calls for Internet Funds Police By Jane Martinson Financial Times: Friday, October 3, 1997 A US securities regulator called yesterday for international co-operation on policing the sale of cross-border mutual funds on the internet. Douglas Scheidt, assistant director in the investment management division at the Securities and Exchange Commission, said: "Securities regulators around the world should work together to find an approach, and to find it relatively soon to satisfy the needs of everyone concerned." Fund managers, particularly in the US, are increasingly using the internet to market their products to investors around the world. This causes policing problems when potential customers in other countries are not covered by regulatory agreements. Regulations surrounding the cross-border sale of products are still vague. Mr Scheidt outlined his preferred approach to the issue at a meeting of the Federation Europeenne des Fonds et Societes d'Investissement, a body of leading European fund managers, in London yesterday. This approach would insist on the fund management group clearly stating the citizens it is allowed to sell to on its home page. Mr Scheidt suggested simple wording to the effect that only US investors were able to purchase US mutual funds, for example. This "disclaimer" would be combined with a demand on managers to screen out possible purchases from unauthorised countries. Mr Scheidt advocated a "flexible approach" which recognised that fund managers could be misled on the country of potential investors but insisted on proof that they had done everything possible to cut down on sales to citizens in unauthorised countries. A solution could be the use of gateways or passwords making it harder for potential investors to find information about a mutual fund. Mr Scheidt said the main drawback was the cost. He also discounted what he described as the "regulator's dream approach" of insisting on the "facts and circumstances" of every transaction. He felt that one of the most important virtues of these approaches was that they did not require any legal changes to enable the internet to be used as a marketing tool. He said his department was also keen to look at how fund managers marketed their products generally to potential clients on the internet. Changes to products must be sent separately via e-mail or the post. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

What's really in PGP 5.5?
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jon Callas wrote: >I have a number of comments about the New York Times article on PGP >5.5 for Business of which Martin Minow sent a synopsis. >If we had built what they said we had, then we'd deserve of all the >derision people have directed at us. But we didn't. The New York >Times got it flat wrong. In your long message I was unable to locate an area in which the New York Times "got it flat wrong". If anything, your post was more alarming than the newspaper article. >This downside is particularly insidious for a number of >reasons. First, without fixing that problem, strong cryptography will >be in some sort of limbo. You want to use it to protect your valuable >information, but you won't want to use it for any information that's >*too* valuable, because it's easily lost. Crypto-protected >information is fragile, and this fragility could hurt its widespread >deployment. What you call "fragility" is properly called "security". Would you describe 128-bit keys as more "fragile" than 40-bit keys? Why is PGP, Inc. inventing propaganda terms for the authorities? >Data recovery is useful for a number of things. Perhaps you lost your >passphrase. Or data might have been encrypted by an employee or co >worker who was in an accident. (As an aside, fifteen years ago, the >architect of a product I worked on was in a severe car wreck. He was >not killed, but suffered brain damage and has never returned to >work.) Your spouse might need access to financial records. Everyone, >be they an individual, business, or coporation has a right to having >their data protected, and protection not only means being able to put >it into a safe, but getting it out of that safe later. It is fascinating to me that every example you use does not involve decrypting transmitted messages. Yet, that is the feature which is under discussion. The demand for the ability to decrypt encrypted messages in the corporate environment can easily be measured with this test: how many companies have a policy that requires employees to record all outgoing mail? >(6) It must also provide a response to those who would regulate >crypto in the name of public safety. This is a red herring. Nobody has been talking about regulating cryptography as a matter of public safety in a serious way. Why is PGP, Inc. posing non-threats to justify its actions? Probably because its actual, all too obvious, motivations are unpalatable to the cypherpunks and probably to most of its customers and supporters. They are not unpalatable to Big Brother, however. I suggest that in the future we do not meet at the PGP, Inc. headquarters and that we do not treat this company as a trustworthy ally. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNDsgSpaWtjSmRH/5AQG/pwf+LBO0ynwGeLLJipuWTIfoE9n7xvBJeXD4 od4Q7NYMZl/UfbudynBHMKGI0/xrhVhC1lmJlXXu+/mbBK2K1H0X9EMILQqpxhM4 RJd5ndR1BI0dpoRZX4+6PRq2mRi3lspvvXp3UkL4bKR8MpCqVJNcpluunMtBgIzh WoxXjw2GzVnbPiWoHhS/TIdQNSvubBCYBsje5rOKc71yQj86ymUzKLovX6O7j/dD eIjlJZTuP+AemEyG6FD5dyXQV7qdcxKwDG9G4ka813NHl88LU0Nc1JcM4aPATgfh 4cZhgppUvZqSGwd0QpxYb/OduE/adCuqmyrubMumc3SqTKRjPdLyBA== =f9J+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 4

We Will Loan You $59,000 And You NEVER Have To Repay Us
by ffn＠omni.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PLEASE EXCUSE THE INTRUSION. BUT, THIS INFORMATION MAY BE OF GREAT INTEREST TO YOU... How would you like to BORROW $59,000 and NEVER have to repay the LOAN? If you answered YES, and who wouldn't, then I would like to invite you to join a very SPECIAL group of people. The FINANCIAL FRIENDS NETWORK. The FINANCIAL FRIENDS NETWORK is an ever expanding international group of GENEROUS and CARING people who WILL automatically receive $59,000 LOANS, that they NEVER have to repay. All of our members are hard working, family-oriented people, with one common goal that unites us all. We are committed to generating income, to provide the neccessities and the comforts for ourselves and our families. Let us show you exactly how our UNIQUE, HONEST and PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED program, automatically LOANS YOU $59,000. HERE'S HOW IT WORKS: Just LOAN 1 existing member $20 (which is your lifetime membership fee) and THAT'S IT!!! WE DO EVERTHING ELSE FOR YOU! ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS JOIN US TO RECEIVE YOUR $59,000 LOAN! IT'S REALLY AMAZING HOW EASY THIS IS AND HOW BEAUTIFULLY IT WORKS! We can assure you that this is a LEGAL and LEGITIMATE offer and complies with US law, title 18, sections 1302 & 1341. After all, who hasn't LOANED a FRIEND money before! And, we don't even expect YOU to repay us. HERE'S HOW TO JOIN: 1) Fill out the membership application at the bottom of this letter. 2) Send us your application along with $20, your lifetime membership fee. AND THAT'S IT, WE'LL DO EVERYTHING ELSE FOR YOU! HOW AND WHEN DO YOU RECEIVE YOUR LOAN: ONLY the member in the #1 position RECEIVES YOUR LOAN/membership fee. (SEE MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION) The FINANCIAL FRIENDS NETWORK will then remove the name of the person in the #1 position and will then add YOUR name and YOUR assigned number to the #5 position. The FINACIAL FRIENDS NETWORK will then enroll new members for you, as we are currently doing for an existing member, right now. Those collected membership fees are then forwarded to YOU, as the member in the #1 position. THE FINANCIAL FRIENDS NETWORK WILL CONTINUOUSLY AND VIGOROUSLY ENROLL NEW MEMBERS UNTIL EACH EXISTING MEMBER HAS "SPONSORED" 5 NEW MEMBERS. BY DOING THIS, NO MEMBER CAN FAIL! THIS SERVICE ALONE IS WORTH MUCH, MUCH MORE THAN THE SMALL $20 LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP FEE! CALCULATION OF LOAN AMOUNT: Position 5: We enroll 5 new members for YOU - 1 X 5 = 5 Position 4: We enroll 5 new members for them - 5 X 5 = 25 Position 3: We enroll 5 new members for them - 25 X 5 = 125 Position 2: We enroll 5 new members for them - 125 X 5 = 600 Position 1: We enroll 5 new members for them - 600 X 5 = 3000 Those 3000 new members LOAN YOU $20 EACH, for a total of $60,000, less a $1000 loan processing fee, retained by FINANCIAL FRIENDS NETWORK. This is how we make a profit and it enables us to continuously increase our membership. THAT'S ALL THERE IS TO IT! When YOUR name reaches the #1 position, usually in 3-4 months, YOU will then start to receive YOUR LOAN. YOUR LOANS will be automatically forwarded to you on the 1st and 15th of each month, until YOU receive YOUR entire $59,000 LOAN. Any overages will be automatically repositioned to the next member on the list. (We never know exactly how many people will respond to each specific mailing) Almost EVERYBODY JOINS our exclusive network due to it's LOW, LOW lifetime membership fee and it's HIGH, HIGH rate of return. Thousands of new members are joining monthly. There are over 150,000 new people getting on the Internet each week. This provides us a vast and ever expanding market to tap into. THAT'S WHY THIS OPPORTUNITY IS SUCH A FANTASTIC SUCCESS! Nobody could blame you if you are having some reservations about joining our exclusive membership offer. But PLEASE, don't let your fears and past disappointments keep you from allowing YOURSELF and YOUR FAMILY to benefit from this ONCE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY! Financial security is the one basic need of all people. Without it, it's difficult to survive. IMAGINE WHAT YOU COULD DO WITH A $59,000 LOAN, THAT YOU NEVER HAVE TO REPAY! The FINANCIAL FRIENDS NETWORK allows ALL of it's members the opportunity to become FINANCIALLY SECURE. And, YOUR lifetime membership fee is so LOW, there's no strain on YOUR budget! PLEASE don't confuse the FINANCIAL FRIENDS NETWORK with any other money programs that are DOOMED from the start. They make no guarantees, they want YOU to do ALL the work and they want YOU to absorb ALL the cost. They'll even tell you that YOUR SUCCESS depends solely on YOU! As a member of the FINANCIAL FRIENDS NETWORK, We do ALL the work and WE absorb all the cost. YOU just sit back and collect YOUR LOAN. WHAT COULD BE EASIER? MONEY BACK GUARANTEE: If at any time, you would like to cancel your membership, we will refund you your full lifetime membership fee, no questions asked. NOW YOUR MEMBERSHIP IS RISK FREE! WE'RE SURE YOU'LL HAVE TO AGREE, THAT THIS IS THE MOST POWERFUL OPPORTUNITY OF IT'S KIND, WITH ABSOLUTELY NO RISK! PLEASE DON'T LET THIS OPPORTUNITY PASS YOU BY. IT WILL PROBABLY BE THE BEST THING THAT EVER HAPPENS TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! HAVE YOU EVER GAMBLED AWAY MONEY ON LOTTERY TICKETS? NOW YOU CAN BE A "WINNER" AND RECEIVE YOUR $59,000, BY BECOMING A MEMBER OF THE FINANCIAL FRIENDS NETWORK! JOIN US NOW! MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION: YES, I want to receive my $59,000 too! I understand that I can cancel my membership at any time. As a FINANCIAL FRIENDS NETWORK member, all loans are interest free and I never have to repay the loan. All information about me will be kept strictly confidential. NAME____________________________________________________ ADDRESS_________________________________________________ CITY________________________STATE_________ZIP___________ PHONE________________________E-MAIL_____________________ (optional) (optional) MAKE CASHIERS CHECKS PAYABLE TO:________________________ MEMBERS: Position 1: J. Jeffers ID# 67441 Position 2: C. Danko ID# 68377 Position 3: J. Berga ID# 70029 Position 4: M. Lentz ID# 74893 Position 5: G. Nunoz ID# 77906 You may also send in your application by puting the above information on a seperate sheet of paper. DON'T FORGET TO INCLUDE ALL 5 POSITIONS, WITH NAMES AND ID#'s. SEND YOUR APPLICATION ALONG WITH $20 CASH, Sorry, but we ask that all payments be made in cash, to eliminate ALL tax liabilities. All Checks will be returned. SEND TO: FFN 1101 E. Tropicana Ave. STE.# 187 Las Vegas, NV 89119 Please make sure cash does not show through envelope. NOW, JUST SIT BACK AND RELAX, YOUR LOAN WILL BE ARRIVING SOON! THANK YOU, and WELCOME TO THE FINANCIAL FRIENDS NETWORK.

1 0

govt goes gun nuts
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

for the libertarians & govt haters ------- Forwarded Message Date: Sat, 04 Oct 1997 19:36:29 -0500 From: "Chris W. Stark - GOA Texas Rep." <gunowner(a)OnRamp.NET> To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Subject: IP: 60,000 Pistol Packing Feds - Up 2,436 in 1 year! ==== BEGIN FORWARD================================ 60,000 pistol-packing federal bureaucrats show why people fear the government WASHINGTON, DC -- A new report revealing that almost 60,000 federal employees now carry weapons has prompted the Libertarian Party to come out in favor of gun control -- for the federal government. According to a study by the General Accounting Office (GAO), an astounding 60,000 government employees in 45 different agencies now carry guns as a routine part of their job. And it's not just law enforcement agents: Poultry inspectors, park rangers, and disaster aid workers are all allowed to carry weapons -- in addition to special agents from the Small Business Administration, NASA, the Department of Education, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and even the Department of Veterans Affairs, noted Steve Dasbach, national chairman of the Libertarian Party. "Federal employees have gone nuts -- gun nuts," he said. "It's time to impose a waiting period on the federal government, while the American people conduct a background check on these armed and potentially dangerous bureaucrats." According to the GAO investigation, the number of federal employees with guns is growing rapidly -- up by 20% in the last 10 years. In fact, 2,436 armed personnel were added to the federal government's payroll last year alone. Even worse, federal employees are getting more powerful weapons. According to the GAO, the Energy Department now has access to machine guns, and other agencies can summon tanks and military helicopters. In addition, the Western Journalism Center discovered that the National Park Service and the Department of Health & Human Services now have their own SWAT teams. Machines guns? Tanks? SWAT teams? What's going on? Dasbach said he has a theory: "Congress has passed over 3,000 criminal laws, and federal agencies have churned out hundreds of thousands of regulations that carry criminal penalties. The result is that ordinary Americans run a constant risk of violating laws they've never even heard of as federal agents scramble to enforce those laws at the point of a gun." And Libertarians aren't the only ones who have noticed this disturbing trend, he said. For example, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) last month blasted the "massive buildup of a virtual army of armed regulators." Larry Pratt, head of Gun Owners of America, described the 60,000 armed federal employees as "a standing army -- it's outrageous." And Greg Lojein, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the acquisition of "heavy equipment" like tanks and helicopters by federal agencies is "more characteristic of war than law enforcement." "No wonder Americans don't trust their government; their government doesn't trust them," said Dasbach. "But trust doesn't grow out of the barrel of a gun -- or from the sight of a pistol-packing poultry inspector. "If we want to live in an America where ordinary citizens don't have to fear their own government -- and where the government doesn't have 60,000 guns pointed at ordinary citizens -- the solution is to demand a government that obeys the Constitution and protects the liberties of its citizens," he said. "And the first step: Gun control for the federal government. Let's end this federal arms race, and turn the federal bureaucracy into a demilitarized zone." The Libertarian Party ======= END FORWARD ============================================= **************************************************************** Chris W. Stark Gun Owners of America - Texas Representative e-mail: gunowner(a)onramp.net Visit our Web Page at: http://rampages.onramp.net/~gunowner Support "The only no compromise gun lobby in Washington & Texas." ***************************** ***Become a member of GOA TODAY!*** ***************************** **************************************************************** "No class or group or party in Germany could escape its share of responsibility for the abandonment of the democratic Republic and the advent of Adolf Hitler. The cardinal error of the Germans who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it. ....the 63% of the German people who expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, HOWEVER TEMPORARY, to stamp it out." -William L. Shirer, author of "The rise and fall of the Third Reich" p.259 .....they who do not learn from History are DOOMED to repeat it!! ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: subscribe ignition-point email@address or unsubscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** http://www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

"Fear and loathing of cyberspace not uncommon"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I just got back from Fox News, where I was on with someone from the Chicago Bar and Donna Rice-Hughes (yes, that Donna Rice). Rice-Hughes, now an anti-porn activist at Enough is Enough, did her part to promote fear and loathing of cyberspace. "Chatrooms are a pedophile's playground. Kids are falling through the cracks." She called for more obscenity prosecutions online, but told me afterwards she didn't endorse labelling schemes like RSACi. --Declan] *************** By DONALD M. ROTHBERG Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The world runs on computers and, in a sense, computers run the world. But all this technological progress comes at a price, a new problem psychologists call computer phobia. It is everywhere - in private industry, in government and in the home. For many people computers are wondrous machines offering access to a vast world of knowledge. But to others they are impersonal monsters that react to an errant key stroke with this brusque message: "You have performed an illegal operation. This computer will shut down." When the car or the dishwasher breaks down, people curse the machine. Often when the computer malfunctions, the first reaction is, "What have I done wrong?" Nowhere is the problem of computer phobia likely to show up the most than in the federal government. The government has millions of computers. Literally. Larry Irving, assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information, said there are people "who resist and people who are intimidated" by the increasingly technological focus of their jobs. "It's a problem, but it's not insurmountable," he said. "You just have to find a reason for people to get over it." Irving cited the man at the top of the government. "My sense is the president did not spend a lot of time doing personal e-mail until his daughter went to college," he said. "A lot of people are embarrassed about saying they're afraid of computers," said Carol Goldberg, a clinical psychologist who conducts workshops to help corporations deal with technological stress. Michelle Weil, a clinical psychologist in Orange, Calif., and co-author of the book, "TechnoStress: Coping with Stress at Work, at Home, at Play," said about 15 percent of people love technology and up to 25 percent of the rest are what she called "resisters." "The resisters will have higher stress, lower productivity, less efficiency and higher workers comp claims," she said. As the biggest user of computers, has the government seen greater absenteeism as technology grows? "I suspect that may be true," said Don Heffernan, assistant chief information officer at the General Services Administration, the government property agency. A year ago, every GSA employee was given Internet access, Heffernan said. "Going into that we knew there were going to be people, even people who used computers a bit, who were going to be intimidated by the Internet," he said. To help employees adjust to the new technology, GSA Administrator David Barram urged those who were experienced in using the Internet to "become five-minute tutors" for those intimidated by the technology. Weil is less confident than the government officials that getting over computer phobia is just a matter of incentive. "This problem has not gone away," she said. "In fact, it's getting worse. We wondered that as technology got more commonplace in society wouldn't people just get used to it. "The answer is no. In fact, some of the technology now makes less sense than the technology did 15 years ago." Irving, the Commerce Department official, said the biggest indication that people are overcoming computer phobia is in one huge number. "This year 2.7 trillion e-mail are going to be sent around the world," he said. "That means a lot of people have overcome their paranoia and their phobia." Donald M. Rothberg has covered the federal government for The Associated Press in Washington since 1966. ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

2 1

The Important Question / Re: russia_1.html
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul Pomes wrote: > > Even a fizzle with a yield in the hundreds of tons equivalent is respectable. > Plutonium decay products have a high neutron cross-section and steal the > fast neutrons necessary for the chain reaction to build. Sufficient amounts > can kill off the last three or more re-doublings which is where most of the > explosive power comes from. On the other hand finely dispersed Pu and > other fission products plus the irradiated material that becomes radioactive > will make a few square miles dangerous to inhabit for several years. Bill Frantz wrote: > Plutonium has a half life on the order > of 250,000 years, so very little decay products would build up in 6 years. > The tritium used in thermonuclear weapons has a much shorter half life, and > would need to be replaced about that often. But the _important_ question is: "Where do connect the 'yellow' wire?"

1 0

EVENT - Join Rep. Dreier LIVE Online Wednesday Sept 8
by Jonah Seiger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================================================================= _ _ __| | ___ _ __ ___ ___ ___ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ___| |_ / _` |/ _ \ '_ ` _ \ / _ \ / __| '__/ _` |/ __| | | | | '_ \ / _ \ __| | (_| | __/ | | | | | (_) | (__| | | (_| | (__| |_| |_| | | | __/ |_ \__,_|\___|_| |_| |_|\___/ \___|_| \__,_|\___|\__, (_)_| |_|\___|\__| |___/ Government Without Walls _________________________________________________________________________ Update No.14 http://www.democracy.net/ Oct 06 1997 _________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents - Virtual Town Hall Meeting with Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) Wed 10/08 - About democracy.net _____________________________________________________________________ DEMOCRACY.NET VIRTUAL TOWN HALL MEETING WITH REP. DAVID DREIER (R-CA) Join Representative David Dreier (R-CA) live at democracy.net for an interactive discussion of current Internet policy issues, including efforts to reform US Encryption policy. Dreier is a name you need to know. As a member of the House Rules Committee, Representative Dreier will soon be called upon to help reconcile the various versions of the Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act (SAFE, HR 695). Dreier is a sponsor of the original version of SAFE, and supports efforts to promote privacy and security on the Internet through the widespread availability of strong encryption. However, the FBI, and Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon (R-NY) are pushing for a version of SAFE which contains sweeping new domestic encryption restrictions. Representative Dreier is also a leading advocate for the use of the Internet and other interactive communications technology to make Congress more open, accountable, and effective, having played a key role in forming the 21st Century Congress Project. He has sponsored a campaign finance bill (HR 1780 - http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:h.r.1780:) that would require candidates to file their donations with the Federal Elections Commission and disclose them rapidly on the Internet, among other issues the bill tackles. Dreier is also a member of the Congressional Internet Caucus. EVENT DETAILS: Date: Wednesday October 8, 1997 Time: 8:00 pm Eastern (5:00 pm pacific) Location: http://www.democracy.net HOW THE TOWN HALL MEETING WORKS: The democracy.net Virtual Town Hall Meeting will include a moderated discussion between Rep. Dreier and democracy.net moderator Todd Lappin, cybercast live via RealAudio. Participants can join a simultaneous chat forum to pose questions for the moderator and discuss the proceedings. Questions can also be submitted via a form on the democracy.net web site (http://www.democracy.net/questions/) WHAT YOU'LL NEED: You will need a copy of RealAuido and a telnet application to participate. Both are available free at http://www.democracy.net/ We hope you will join us for an interesting discussion. _______________________________________________________________________________ REPRESENTATIVE DRIER ON THE SECURITY AND FREEDOM THROUGH ENCRYPTION ACT (SAFE): "Export controls on encryption software put U.S. firms at a disadvantage against foreign competitors who are permitted to sell more advanced software on the international market. These controls also fail to prevent foreign software companies from producing advanced encryption software. I support H.R. 695, the Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act, which addresses the concerns of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies by permitting the export of encryption software which is as advanced as software widely available on the international market." _____________________________________________________________________________ SHORT BIOGRAPHY OF REP. DRIER (from http://www.house.gov/dreier) Congressman David Dreier (R-CA) is in his ninth term representing the eastern cities of Los Angeles County. He serves on the House Rules Committee and chairs the Subcommittee on Rules and Organization of the House. In 1996, the Subcommittee set up the 21st Century Congress Project to develop and recommend changes in Congress' operations and legislative procedures that will allow technology to make the institution more open, accountable and effective. The subcommittee held two hearings on the impact of new information technologies on the legislative process and decision-making. The first was an interactive hearing that utilized television, video conference technology, e-mail and the Internet. Information about the 21st Century Congress Project and the testimony and transcripts of the two technology hearings can be accessed on the Subcommittee Web site at http://www.house.gov/rules_org. Dreier is a member of the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Internet Caucus. Working with Congressman Rick White, he pushed through the new House rule requiring committees to put their publications on the Internet. Dreier's office Web site is considered one of the most comprehensive and informative on Capitol Hill. There, citizens can gain obtain information on Dreier's legislative priorities, access CRS reports and other hard-to-find resources on how Congress works, and communicate directly with the Congressman by Web mail. Legislatively, Dreier is a cosponsor of the Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act. He is also the sponsor of the Voter Empowerment Act, which reforms the campaign finance by, among other things, requiring all disclosure information to be made available on the Internet, and requiring the FEC to publish an expansive Internet site which would contain a separate page for every Congressional and Presidential candidate, each PAC, and every national party. ___________________________________________________________________________ ABOUT DEMOCRACY.NET democracy.net is a joint project of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) to explore ways of enhancing citizen participation in the democratic process via the Internet. To this end, democracy.net will host live, interactive cybercasts of Congressional Hearings and online town hall meetings with key policy makers. democracy.net is made possible through the generous support of WebActive, Public Access Networks, theSync, and Democracy Network. More information about the project and its sponsors can be found at http://www.democracy.net/about/ To receive democracy.net announcements automatically, please visit our signup form at http://www.democracy.net/ To stop receiving these announcements, please send email to majordomo(a)democracy.net with "unsubscribe events" in the body of the message. _________________________________________________________________________ end update no.14 10/06/97 =========================================================================

1 0

Re:New PGP "Everything the FBI ever dreamed of"
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I would be almost as inclined to think that a company using PGP5.5 with a forced encrypted to (company) self in addition to whomever else ... might even put up a bigger fuss about passing out their 'master key' to Freeh-dumb et al. than many CP individuals ... ... another passing thought, could the anticipated implementation of this have had anything to do with removal of the 'conventional encryption' options in PGP5 ???? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNDlREcdZgC62U/gIEQIo/wCg0FfHi8A3a67vYsskAElu5U7C/vkAoLfx 4a/uggNws8ZfGCRNm3UZbo2Q =OGro -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "It's what you learn after you know it all that counts" John Wooden

3 2

off-topic
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >In Canada, one could 'choose' not to work for Safeway Stores, but the > >chain would come into a community and undersell everyone until the locals > >were run out of business, then raise prices dramatically. In theory, you > >could choose to *not* work for Safeway, but in reality, there was no one > >else left *to* choose to work for in the grocery business. > > If they didn't buy products > from the Safeway or WalMart then you wouldn't have the "problem" above. > Economics 101; the people are voting with their wallets. ... and if you don't like living among idiots, then move someplace where te population makes more intelligent purchasing decision to sustain better retailers. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

3 2

Re: russia_1.html
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I forwarded this thread on the missing Russian suitcase nukes to my retired CIA buddy and this was his comments; >OK, Brian, I'm going to speak bluntly on this. Yablokov is telling >the unvarnished truth. And your friend is wrong to contend that no >others were made after 199. I worked in Kazakhstan in 1991, and >know for a fact that more terror weapons were made there than you'd >even want to guess. In fact, the Kazakh Minister of Nuclear Energy >was a personal friend of mine, and I sadly broke with him when he >would not stop the trade of fissionable materials with Kazakhstan's >peace-loving neighbor - - Iran. > >Picture clear? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNDlf58dZgC62U/gIEQKZegCg+7X4SLJJ6wqAvaGsmwtO/vluH/wAn3F9 YNjRbRk3mBbhZRzlGoGxAbYw =7uRt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys <mailto:brianbr@together.net?subject=Get%20PGP%20Key> "If this is the first day of the rest of my life, I am in DEEP trouble!"

1 0

10th aniversary posting
by Weld Pond 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FROM CROSSBOWS TO CRYPTOGRAPHY: TECHNO-THWARTING THE STATE by Chuck Hammill weaponsrus(a)aol.com Given at the Future of Freedom Conference, November 1987 Public Domain: Duplicate and Distribute Freely You know, technology--and particularly computer technology--has often gotten a bad rap in Libertarian cir- cles. We tend to think of Orwell's 1984, or Terry Gilliam's Brazil, or the proximity detectors keeping East Berlin's slave/citizens on their own side of the border, or the so- phisticated bugging devices Nixon used to harass those on his "enemies list." Or, we recognize that for the price of a ticket on the Concorde we can fly at twice the speed of sound, but only if we first walk thru a magnetometer run by a government policeman, and permit him to paw thru our be- longings if it beeps. But I think that mind-set is a mistake. Before there were cattle prods, governments tortured their prisoners with clubs and rubber hoses. Before there were lasers for eavesdropping, governments used binoculars and lip-readers. Though government certainly uses technology to oppress, the evil lies not in the tools but in the wielder of the tools. In fact, technology represents one of the most promis- ing avenues available for re-capturing our freedoms from those who have stolen them. By its very nature, it favors the bright (who can put it to use) over the dull (who can- not). It favors the adaptable (who are quick to see the merit of the new( over the sluggish (who cling to time- tested ways). And what two better words are there to de- scribe government bureaucracy than "dull" and "sluggish"? One of the clearest, classic triumphs of technology over tyranny I see is the invention of the man-portable crossbow. With it, an untrained peasant could now reliably and lethally engage a target out to fifty meters--even if that target were a mounted, chain-mailed knight. (Unlike the longbow, which, admittedly was more powerful, and could get off more shots per unit time, the crossbow required no formal training to utilize. Whereas the longbow required elaborate visual, tactile and kinesthetic coordination to achieve any degree of accuracy, the wielder of a crossbow could simply put the weapon to his shoulder, sight along the arrow itself, and be reasonably assured of hitting his tar- get.) Moreover, since just about the only mounted knights likely to visit your average peasant would be government soldiers and tax collectors, the utility of the device was plain: With it, the common rabble could defend themselves not only against one another, but against their governmental masters. It was the medieval equivalent of the armor- piercing bullet, and, consequently, kings and priests (the medieval equivalent of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Crossbows) threatened death and excommunication, respec- tively, for its unlawful possession. Looking at later developments, we see how technology like the firearm--particularly the repeating rifle and the handgun, later followed by the Gatling gun and more advanced machine guns--radically altered the balance of interpersonal and inter-group power. Not without reason was the Colt .45 called "the equalizer." A frail dance-hall hostess with one in her possession was now fully able to protect herself against the brawniest roughneck in any saloon. Advertise- ments for the period also reflect the merchandising of the repeating cartridge rifle by declaring that "a man on horseback, armed with one of these rifles, simply cannot be captured." And, as long as his captors were relying upon flintlocks or single-shot rifles, the quote is doubtless a true one. Updating now to the present, the public-key cipher (with a personal computer to run it) represents an equiv- alent quantum leap--in a defensive weapon. Not only can such a technique be used to protect sensitive data in one's own possession, but it can also permit two strangers to ex- change information over an insecure communications channel--a wiretapped phone line, for example, or skywriting, for that matter)--without ever having previously met to exchange cipher keys. With a thousand-dollar com- puter, you can create a cipher that a multi-megabuck CRAY X-MP can't crack in a year. Within a few years, it should be economically feasible to similarly encrypt voice communi- cations; soon after that, full-color digitized video images. Technology will not only have made wiretapping obsolete, it will have totally demolished government's control over in- formation transfer. I'd like to take just a moment to sketch the mathemat- ics which makes this principle possible. This algorithm is called the RSA algorithm, after Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman who jointly created it. Its security derives from the fact that, if a very large number is the product of two very large primes, then it is extremely difficult to obtain the two prime factors from analysis of their product. "Ex- tremely" in the sense that if primes p and q have 100 digits apiece, then their 200-digit product cannot in gen- eral be factored in less than 100 years by the most powerful computer now in existence. The "public" part of the key consists of (1) the prod- uct pq of the two large primes p and q, and (2) one fac- tor, call it x , of the product xy where xy = {(p-1) * (q-1) + 1}. The "private" part of the key consists of the other factor y. Each block of the text to be encrypted is first turned into an integer--either by using ASCII, or even a simple A=01, B=02, C=03, ... , Z=26 representation. This integer is then raised to the power x (modulo pq) and the resulting integer is then sent as the encrypted message. The receiver decrypts by taking this integer to the (secret) power y (modulo pq). It can be shown that this process will always yield the original number started with. What makes this a groundbreaking development, and why it is called "public-key" cryptography," is that I can openly publish the product pq and the number x , while keeping secret the number y --so that anyone can send me an encrypted message, namely x a (mod pq) , but only I can recover the original message a , by taking what they send, raising it to the power y and taking the result (mod pq). The risky step (meeting to exchange cipher keys) has been eliminated. So people who may not even trust each other enough to want to meet, may still reliably ex- change encrypted messages--each party having selected and disseminated his own pq and his x , while maintaining the secrecy of his own y . Another benefit of this scheme is the notion of a "dig- ital signature," to enable one to authenticate the source of a given message. Normally, if I want to send you a message, I raise my plaintext a to your x and take the result (mod your pq) and send that. However, if in my message, I take the plaintext a and raise it to my (secret) power y , take the result (mod my pq), then raise that result to your x (mod your pq) and send this, then even after you have normally "decrypted" the message, it will still look like garbage. However, if you then raise it to my public power x , and take the result (mod my public pq ), so you will not only recover the ori- ginal plaintext message, but you will know that no one but I could have sent it to you (since no one else knows my secret y ). And these are the very concerns by the way that are to- day tormenting the Soviet Union about the whole question of personal computers. On the one hand, they recognize that American schoolchildren are right now growing up with com- puters as commonplace as sliderules used to be--more so, in fact, because there are things computers can do which will interest (and instruct) 3- and 4-year-olds. And it is pre- cisely these students who one generation hence will be going head-to-head against their Soviet counterparts. For the Soviets to hold back might be a suicidal as continuing to teach swordsmanship while your adversaries are learning ballistics. On the other hand, whatever else a personal computer may be, it is also an exquisitely efficient copying machine--a floppy disk will hold upwards of 50,000 words of text, and can be copied in a couple of minutes. If this weren't threatening enough, the computer that performs the copy can also encrypt the data in a fashion that is all but unbreakable. Remember that in Soviet society publicly ac- cessible Xerox machines are unknown. (The relatively few copying machines in existence are controlled more inten- sively than machine guns are in the United States.) Now the "conservative" position is that we should not sell these computers to the Soviets, because they could use them in weapons systems. The "liberal" position is that we should sell them, in the interests of mutual trade and cooperation--and anyway, if we don't make the sale, there will certainly be some other nation willing to. For my part, I'm ready to suggest that the Libertarian position should be to give them to the Soviets for free, and if necessary, make them take them . . . and if that doesn't work load up an SR-71 Blackbird and air drop them over Moscow in the middle of the night. Paid for by private sub- scription, of course, not taxation . . . I confess that this is not a position that has gained much support among members of the conventional left-right political spectrum, but, af- ter all, in the words of one of Illuminatus's characters, we are political non-Euclideans: The shortest distance to a particular goal may not look anything like what most people would consider a "straight line." Taking a long enough world-view, it is arguable that breaking the Soviet govern- ment monopoly on information transfer could better lead to the enfeeblement and, indeed, to the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet empire than would the production of another dozen missiles aimed at Moscow. But there's the rub: A "long enough" world view does suggest that the evil, the oppressive, the coercive and the simply stupid will "get what they deserve," but what's not immediately clear is how the rest of us can escape being killed, enslaved, or pauperized in the process. When the liberals and other collectivists began to at- tack freedom, they possessed a reasonably stable, healthy, functioning economy, and almost unlimited time to proceed to hamstring and dismantle it. A policy of political gradualism was at least conceivable. But now, we have patchwork crazy-quilt economy held together by baling wire and spit. The state not only taxes us to "feed the poor" while also inducing farmers to slaughter milk cows and drive up food prices--it then simultaneously turns around and sub- sidizes research into agricultural chemicals designed to in- crease yields of milk from the cows left alive. Or witness the fact that a decline in the price of oil is considered as potentially frightening as a comparable increase a few years ago. When the price went up, we were told, the economy risked collapse for for want of energy. The price increase was called the "moral equivalent of war" and the Feds swung into action. For the first time in American history, the speed at which you drive your car to work in the morning be- came an issue of Federal concern. Now, when the price of oil drops, again we risk problems, this time because Ameri- can oil companies and Third World basket-case nations who sell oil may not be able to ever pay their debts to our grossly over-extended banks. The suggested panacea is that government should now re-raise the oil prices that OPEC has lowered, via a new oil tax. Since the government is seeking to raise oil prices to about the same extent as OPEC did, what can we call this except the "moral equivalent of civil war--the government against its own people?" And, classically, in international trade, can you imag- ine any entity in the world except a government going to court claiming that a vendor was selling it goods too cheaply and demanding not only that that naughty vendor be compelled by the court to raise its prices, but also that it be punished for the act of lowering them in the first place? So while the statists could afford to take a couple of hundred years to trash our economy and our liberties--we certainly cannot count on having an equivalent period of stability in which to reclaim them. I contend that there exists almost a "black hole" effect in the evolution of nation-states just as in the evolution of stars. Once free- dom contracts beyond a certain minimum extent, the state warps the fabric of the political continuum about itself to the degree that subsequent re-emergence of freedom becomes all but impossible. A good illustration of this can be seen in the area of so-called "welfare" payments. When those who sup at the public trough outnumber (and thus outvote) those whose taxes must replenish the trough, then what possible choice has a democracy but to perpetuate and expand the tak- ing from the few for the unearned benefit of the many? Go down to the nearest "welfare" office, find just two people on the dole . . . and recognize that between them they form a voting bloc that can forever outvote you on the question of who owns your life--and the fruits of your life's labor. So essentially those who love liberty need an "edge" of some sort if we're ultimately going to prevail. We obvi- ously can't use the altruists' "other-directedness" of "work, slave, suffer, sacrifice, so that next generation of a billion random strangers can live in a better world." Recognize that, however immoral such an appeal might be, it is nonetheless an extremely powerful one in today's culture. If you can convince people to work energetically for a "cause," caring only enough for their personal welfare so as to remain alive enough and healthy enough to continue working--then you have a truly massive reservoir of energy to draw from. Equally clearly, this is just the sort of ap- peal which tautologically cannot be utilized for egoistic or libertarian goals. If I were to stand up before you tonight and say something like, "Listen, follow me as I enunciate my noble "cause," contribute your money to support the "cause," give up your free time to work for the "cause," strive selflessly to bring it about, and then (after you and your children are dead) maybe your children's children will actu- ally live under egoism"--you'd all think I'd gone mad. And of course you'd be right. Because the point I'm trying to make is that libertarianism and/or egoism will be spread if, when, and as, individual libertarians and/or egoists find it profitable and/or enjoyable to do so. And probably only then. While I certainly do not disparage the concept of poli- tical action, I don't believe that it is the only, nor even necessarily the most cost-effective path toward increasing freedom in our time. Consider that, for a fraction of the investment in time, money and effort I might expend in try- ing to convince the state to abolish wiretapping and all forms of censorship--I can teach every libertarian who's in- terested how to use cryptography to abolish them unilaterally. There is a maxim--a proverb--generally attributed to the Eskimoes, which very likely most Libertarians have al- ready heard. And while you likely would not quarrel with the saying, you might well feel that you've heard it often enough already, and that it has nothing further to teach us, and moreover, that maybe you're even tired of hearing it. I shall therefore repeat it now: If you give a man a fish, the saying runs, you feed him for a day. But if you teach a man how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. Your exposure to the quote was probably in some sort of a "workfare" vs. "welfare" context; namely, that if you genuinely wish to help someone in need, you should teach him how to earn his sustenance, not simply how to beg for it. And of course this is true, if only because the next time he is hungry, there might not be anybody around willing or even able to give him a fish, whereas with the information on how to fish, he is completely self sufficient. But I submit that this exhausts only the first order content of the quote, and if there were nothing further to glean from it, I would have wasted your time by citing it again. After all, it seems to have almost a crypto-altruist slant, as though to imply that we should structure our ac- tivities so as to maximize the benefits to such hungry beggars as we may encounter. But consider: Suppose this Eskimo doesn't know how to fish, but he does know how to hunt walruses. You, on the other hand, have often gone hungry while traveling thru walrus country because you had no idea how to catch the damn things, and they ate most of the fish you could catch. And now suppose the two of you decide to exchange information, bartering fishing knowledge for hunting knowledge. Well, the first thing to observe is that a transaction of this type categorically and unambiguously refutes the Marxist premise that every trade must have a "winner" and a "loser;" the idea that if one person gains, it must necessarily be at the "expense" of another person who loses. Clearly, under this scenario, such is not the case. Each party has gained some- thing he did not have before, and neither has been dimin- ished in any way. When it comes to exchange of information (rather than material objects) life is no longer a zero-sum game. This is an extremely powerful notion. The "law of diminishing returns," the "first and second laws of thermodynamics"--all those "laws" which constrain our possi- bilities in other contexts--no longer bind us! Now that's anarchy! Or consider another possibility: Suppose this hungry Eskimo never learned to fish because the ruler of his nation-state had decreed fishing illegal. Because fish contain dangerous tiny bones, and sometimes sharp spines, he tells us, the state has decreed that their consumption--and even their possession--are too hazardous to the people's health to be permitted . . . even by knowledgeable, willing adults. Perhaps it is because citizens' bodies are thought to be government property, and therefore it is the function of the state to punish those who improperly care for govern- ment property. Or perhaps it is because the state gener- ously extends to competent adults the "benefits" it provides to children and to the mentally ill: namely, a full-time, all-pervasive supervisory conservatorship--so that they need not trouble themselves with making choices about behavior thought physically risky or morally "naughty." But, in any case, you stare stupefied, while your Eskimo informant re- lates how this law is taken so seriously that a friend of his was recently imprisoned for years for the crime of "pos- session of nine ounces of trout with intent to distribute." Now you may conclude that a society so grotesquely oppressive as to enforce a law of this type is simply an affront to the dignity of all human beings. You may go far- ther and decide to commit some portion of your discretion- ary, recreational time specifically to the task of thwarting this tyrant's goal. (Your rationale may be "altruistic" in the sense of wanting to liberate the oppressed, or "egoistic" in the sense of proving you can outsmart the oppressor--or very likely some combination of these or per- haps even other motives.) But, since you have zero desire to become a martyr to your "cause," you're not about to mount a military campaign, or even try to run a boatload of fish through the blockade. However, it is here that technology--and in particular in- formation technology--can multiply your efficacy literally a hundredfold. I say "literally," because for a fraction of the effort (and virtually none of the risk) attendant to smuggling in a hundred fish, you can quite readily produce a hundred Xerox copies of fishing instructions. (If the tar- geted government, like present-day America, at least permits open discussion of topics whose implementation is re- stricted, then that should suffice. But, if the government attempts to suppress the flow of information as well, then you will have to take a little more effort and perhaps write your fishing manual on a floppy disk encrypted according to your mythical Eskimo's public-key parameters. But as far as increasing real-world access to fish you have made genuine nonzero headway--which may continue to snowball as others re-disseminate the information you have provided. And you have not had to waste any of your time trying to convert id- eological adversaries, or even trying to win over the unde- cided. Recall Harry Browne's dictum from "Freedom in an Unfree World" that the success of any endeavor is in general inversely proportional to the number of people whose persua- sion is necessary to its fulfilment. If you look at history, you cannot deny that it has been dramatically shaped by men with names like Washington, Lincoln, . . . Nixon . . . Marcos . . . Duvalier . . . Khadaffi . . . and their ilk. But it has also been shaped by people with names like Edison, Curie, Marconi, Tesla and Wozniak. And this latter shaping has been at least as per- vasive, and not nearly so bloody. And that's where I'm trying to take The LiberTech Project. Rather than beseeching the state to please not en- slave, plunder or constrain us, I propose a libertarian net- work spreading the technologies by which we may seize freedom for ourselves. But here we must be a bit careful. While it is not (at present) illegal to encrypt information when government wants to spy on you, there is no guarantee of what the fu- ture may hold. There have been bills introduced, for exam- ple, which would have made it a crime to wear body armor when government wants to shoot you. That is, if you were to commit certain crimes while wearing a Kevlar vest, then that fact would constitute a separate federal crime of its own. This law to my knowledge has not passed . . . yet . . . but it does indicate how government thinks. Other technological applications, however, do indeed pose legal risks. We recognize, for example, that anyone who helped a pre-Civil War slave escape on the "underground railroad" was making a clearly illegal use of technology--as the sovereign government of the United States of America at that time found the buying and selling of human beings quite as acceptable as the buying and selling of cattle. Simi- larly, during Prohibition, anyone who used his bathtub to ferment yeast and sugar into the illegal psychoactive drug, alcohol--the controlled substance, wine--was using technol- ogy in a way that could get him shot dead by federal agents for his "crime"--unfortunately not to be restored to life when Congress reversed itself and re-permitted use of this drug. So . . . to quote a former President, un-indicted co- conspirator and pardoned felon . . . "Let me make one thing perfectly clear:" The LiberTech Project does not advocate, participate in, or conspire in the violation of any law--no matter how oppressive, unconstitutional or simply stupid such law may be. It does engage in description (for educa- tional and informational purposes only) of technological processes, and some of these processes (like flying a plane or manufacturing a firearm) may well require appropriate li- censing to perform legally. Fortunately, no license is needed for the distribution or receipt of information it- self. So, the next time you look at the political scene and despair, thinking, "Well, if 51% of the nation and 51% of this State, and 51% of this city have to turn Libertarian before I'll be free, then somebody might as well cut my goddamn throat now, and put me out of my misery"--recognize that such is not the case. There exist ways to make your- self free. If you wish to explore such techniques via the Project, you are welcome to give me your name and address--or a fake name and mail drop, for that matter--and you'll go on the mailing list for my erratically-published newsletter. Any friends or acquaintances whom you think would be interested are welcome as well. I'm not even asking for stamped self- addressed envelopes, since my printer can handle mailing la- bels and actual postage costs are down in the noise compared with the other efforts in getting an issue out. If you should have an idea to share, or even a useful product to plug, I'll be glad to have you write it up for publication. Even if you want to be the proverbial "free rider" and just benefit from what others contribute--you're still welcome: Everything will be public domain; feel free to copy it or give it away (or sell it, for that matter, 'cause if you can get money for it while I'm taking full-page ads trying to give it away, you're certainly entitled to your capitalist profit . . .) Anyway, every application of these principles should make the world just a little freer, and I'm certainly willing to underwrite that, at least for the forseeable fu- ture. I will leave you with one final thought: If you don't learn how to beat your plowshares into swords before they outlaw swords, then you sure as HELL ought to learn before they outlaw plowshares too. --Chuck Hammill THE LIBERTECH PROJECT

2 1

Real DataHaven - Regulatory Arbitrage
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Anguillian company "PublicData.Com.AI Ltd." is running a database out of Anguilla because the laws in Texas changed making a previous business there illegal. So this is a real "datahaven" type application. Basically they have criminal records, drivers licenses, voter registrations, and vehicle registrations in Texas or parts of Texas. Offshore Information Services Ltd. provides Internet service for them. We are currently at 128 kbits/second. -- Vince ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Vincent Cate Offshore Information Services Vince(a)Offshore.com.ai http://www.offshore.com.ai/ Anguilla, BWI http://www.offshore.com.ai/vince ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

PGP 5.5 has conventional encryption
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PGP 5.5 supports conventional encryption.

1 0

Trademarkes -- Basic Facts
by William H. Geiger III 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here is a copy of the Trademark Basic Facts from the PTO web site. Notice that this is properly formated in multipart/alternative so it can be viewed in both text/plain & text/html formats (perhaps one of these days NS will get a clue). -- --------------------------------------------------------------- William H. Geiger III http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii Geiger Consulting Cooking With Warp 4.0 Author of E-Secure - PGP Front End for MR/2 Ice PGP & MR/2 the only way for secure e-mail. OS/2 PGP 2.6.3a at: http://www.amaranth.com/~whgiii/pgpmr2.html --------------------------------------------------------------- Basic Facts About Registering A Trademark What is a Trademark? A TRADEMARK is either a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. Throughout this booklet the terms "trademark" and "mark" are used to refer to both trademarks and service marks whether they are word marks or other types of marks. Normally, a mark for goods appears on the product or on its packaging, while a service mark appears in advertising for the services. A trademark is different from a copyright or a patent. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an invention. For copyright information call the Library of Congress at (202) 707-3000. Establishing Trademark Rights Trademark rights arise from either (1) actual use of the mark, or (2) the filing of a proper application to register a mark in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) stating that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce regulated by the U.S. Congress. (See below, under "Types of Applications," for a discussion of what is meant by the terms commerce and use in commerce.) Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a mark, nor is it required to begin use of a mark. However, federal registration can secure benefits beyond the rights acquired by merely using a mark. For example, the owner of a federal registration is presumed to be the owner of the mark for the goods and services specified in the registration, and to be entitled to use the mark nationwide. There are two related but distinct types of rights in a mark: the right to register and the right to use. Generally, the first party who either uses a mark in commerce or files an application in the PTO has the ultimate right to register that mark. The PTO's authority is limited to determining the right to register. The right to use a mark can be more complicated to determine. This is particularly true when two parties have begun use of the same or similar marks without knowledge of one another and neither has a federal registration. Only a court can render a decision about the right to use, such as issuing an injunction or awarding damages for infringement. It should be noted that a federal registration can provide significant advantages to a party involved in a court proceeding. The PTO cannot provide advice concerning rights in a mark. Only a private attorney can provide such advice. Unlike copyrights or patents, trademark rights can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark to identify its goods or services. The term of a federal trademark registration is 10 years, with 10-year renewal terms. However, between the fifth and sixth year after the date of initial registration, the registrant must file an affidavit setting forth certain information to keep the registration alive. If no affidavit is filed, the registration is canceled.<p> Types of Applications for Federal Registration An applicant may apply for federal registration in three principal ways. (1) An applicant who has already commenced using a mark in commerce may file based on that use (a "use" application). (2) An applicant who has not yet used the mark may apply based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce (an "intent-to-use" application). For the purpose of obtaining federal registration, commerce means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by the U.S. Congress, for example, interstate commerce or commerce between the U.S. and another country. The use in commerce must be a bona fide use in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. Use of a mark in promotion or advertising before the product or service is actually provided under the mark on a normal commercial scale does not qualify as use in commerce. Use of a mark in purely local commerce within a state does not qualify as "use in commerce." If an applicant files based on a bona fide intention to use in commerce, the applicant will have to use the mark in commerce and submit an allegation of use to the PTO before the PTO will register the mark (See page 12). (3) Additionally, under certain international agreements, an applicant from outside the United States may file in the United States based on an application or registration in another country. For information regarding applications based on international agreements please call the information number provided on page 4. A United States registration provides protection only in the United States and its territories. If the owner of a mark wishes to protect a mark in other countries, the owner must seek protection in each country separately under the relevant laws. The PTO cannot provide information or advice concerning protection in other countries. Interested parties may inquire directly in the relevant country or its U.S. offices or through an attorney. Who May File an Application? The application must be filed in the name of the owner of the mark; usually an individual, corporation or partnership. The owner of a mark controls the nature and quality of the goods or services identified by the mark. See below in the line-by-line instructions for information about who must sign the application and other papers. The owner may submit and prosecute its own application for registration, or may be represented by an attorney. The PTO cannot help select an attorney. Foreign Applicants Applicants not living in the United States must designate in writing the name and address of a domestic representative -- a person residing in the United States "upon whom notices of process may be served for proceedings affecting the mark." The applicant may do so by submitting a statement that the named person at the address indicated is appointed as the applicant's domestic representative under º1(e) of the Trademark Act. The applicant must sign this statement. This person will receive all communications from the PTO unless the applicant is represented by an attorney in the United States. Searches for Conflicting Marks An applicant is not required to conduct a search for conflicting marks prior to applying with the PTO. However, some people find it useful. In evaluating an application, an examining attorney conducts a search and notifies the applicant if a conflicting mark is found. The application fee, which covers processing and search costs, will not be refunded even if a conflict is found and the mark cannot be registered. To determine whether there is a conflict between two marks, the PTO determines whether there would be likelihood of confusion, that is, whether relevant consumers would be likely to associate the goods or services of one party with those of the other party as a result of the use of the marks at issue by both parties. The principal factors to be considered in reaching this decision are the similarity of the marks and the commercial relationship between the goods and services identified by the marks. To find a conflict, the marks need not be identical, and the goods and services do not have to be the same. The PTO does not conduct searches for the public to determine if a conflicting mark is registered, or is the subject of a pending application, except as noted above when acting on an application. However, there are a variety of ways to get this same type of information. First, by performing a search in the PTO public search library. The search library is located on the second floor of the South Tower Building, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202. Second, by visiting a patent and trademark depository library (at locations listed on pages 14 and 15). These libraries have CD-ROMS containing the trademark database of registered and pending marks. Finally, either a private trademark search company, or an attorney who deals with trademark law, can provide trademark registration information. The PTO cannot provide advice about possible conflicts between marks. Laws & Rules Governing Federal Registration The federal registration of trademarks is governed by the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. º1051 et seq.; the Trademark Rules, 37 C.F.R. Part 2; and the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (2d ed. 1993). Other Types of Applications In addition to trademarks and service marks, the Trademark Act provides for federal registration of other types of marks, such as certification marks, collective trademarks and service marks, and collective membership marks. These types of marks are relatively rare. For forms and information regarding the registration of these marks, please call the appropriate trademark information number indicated below. Where to Send the Application and Correspondence The application and all other correspondence should be addressed to "The Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513." The initial application should be directed to "Box NEW APP / FEE." An AMENDMENT TO ALLEGE USE should be directed to "Attn. AAU." A STATEMENT OF USE or REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A STATEMENT OF USE should be directed to "Box ITU / FEE." (See page 5 for an explanation of these terms.) The applicant should indicate its telephone number on the application form. Once a serial number is assigned to the application, the applicant should refer to the serial number in all written and telephone communications concerning the application. It is advisable to submit a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the application specifically listing each item in the mailing, that is, the written application, the drawing, the fee, and the specimens (if appropriate). The PTO will stamp the filing date and serial number of the application on the postcard to acknowledge receipt. This will help the applicant if any item is later lost or if the applicant wishes to inquire about the application. The PTO will send a separate official notification of the filing date and serial number for every application about two months after receipt. Use of the "TM," "SM" and "®" Symbols Anyone who claims rights in a mark may use the TM (trademark) or SM (service mark) designation with the mark to alert the public to the claim. It is not necessary to have a registration, or even a pending application, to use these designations. The claim may or may not be valid. The registration symbol, ®, may only be used when the mark is registered in the PTO. It is improper to use this symbol at any point before the registration issues. Please omit all symbols from the mark in the drawing you submit with your application; the symbols are not considered part of the mark. Title: Basic Facts About Registering A Trademark Basic Facts About Registering A Trademark What is a Trademark? A TRADEMARK is either a word, phrase, symbol or design, or combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, which identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods or services of one party from those of others. A service mark is the same as a trademark except that it identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than a product. Throughout this booklet the terms "trademark" and "mark" are used to refer to both trademarks and service marks whether they are word marks or other types of marks. Normally, a mark for goods appears on the product or on its packaging, while a service mark appears in advertising for the services. A trademark is different from a copyright or a patent. A copyright protects an original artistic or literary work; a patent protects an invention. For copyright information call the Library of Congress at (202) 707-3000. Establishing Trademark Rights Trademark rights arise from either (1) actual use of the mark, or (2) the filing of a proper application to register a mark in the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) stating that the applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce regulated by the U.S. Congress. (See below, under "Types of Applications," for a discussion of what is meant by the terms commerce and use in commerce.) Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a mark, nor is it required to begin use of a mark. However, federal registration can secure benefits beyond the rights acquired by merely using a mark. For example, the owner of a federal registration is presumed to be the owner of the mark for the goods and services specified in the registration, and to be entitled to use the mark nationwide. There are two related but distinct types of rights in a mark: the right to register and the right to use. Generally, the first party who either uses a mark in commerce or files an application in the PTO has the ultimate right to register that mark. The PTO's authority is limited to determining the right to register. The right to use a mark can be more complicated to determine. This is particularly true when two parties have begun use of the same or similar marks without knowledge of one another and neither has a federal registration. Only a court can render a decision about the right to use, such as issuing an injunction or awarding damages for infringement. It should be noted that a federal registration can provide significant advantages to a party involved in a court proceeding. The PTO cannot provide advice concerning rights in a mark. Only a private attorney can provide such advice. Unlike copyrights or patents, trademark rights can last indefinitely if the owner continues to use the mark to identify its goods or services. The term of a federal trademark registration is 10 years, with 10-year renewal terms. However, between the fifth and sixth year after the date of initial registration, the registrant must file an affidavit setting forth certain information to keep the registration alive. If no affidavit is filed, the registration is canceled. Types of Applications for Federal Registration An applicant may apply for federal registration in three principal ways. (1) An applicant who has already commenced using a mark in commerce may file based on that use (a "use" application). (2) An applicant who has not yet used the mark may apply based on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce (an "intent-to-use" application). For the purpose of obtaining federal registration, commerce means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by the U.S. Congress, for example, interstate commerce or commerce between the U.S. and another country. The use in commerce must be a bona fide use in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. Use of a mark in promotion or advertising before the product or service is actually provided under the mark on a normal commercial scale does not qualify as use in commerce. Use of a mark in purely local commerce within a state does not qualify as "use in commerce." If an applicant files based on a bona fide intention to use in commerce, the applicant will have to use the mark in commerce and submit an allegation of use to the PTO before the PTO will register the mark (See page 12). (3) Additionally, under certain international agreements, an applicant from outside the United States may file in the United States based on an application or registration in another country. For information regarding applications based on international agreements please call the information number provided on page 4. A United States registration provides protection only in the United States and its territories. If the owner of a mark wishes to protect a mark in other countries, the owner must seek protection in each country separately under the relevant laws. The PTO cannot provide information or advice concerning protection in other countries. Interested parties may inquire directly in the relevant country or its U.S. offices or through an attorney. Who May File an Application? The application must be filed in the name of the owner of the mark; usually an individual, corporation or partnership. The owner of a mark controls the nature and quality of the goods or services identified by the mark. See below in the line-by-line instructions for information about who must sign the application and other papers. The owner may submit and prosecute its own application for registration, or may be represented by an attorney. The PTO cannot help select an attorney. Foreign Applicants Applicants not living in the United States must designate in writing the name and address of a domestic representative -- a person residing in the United States "upon whom notices of process may be served for proceedings affecting the mark." The applicant may do so by submitting a statement that the named person at the address indicated is appointed as the applicant's domestic representative under §1(e) of the Trademark Act. The applicant must sign this statement. This person will receive all communications from the PTO unless the applicant is represented by an attorney in the United States. Searches for Conflicting Marks An applicant is not required to conduct a search for conflicting marks prior to applying with the PTO. However, some people find it useful. In evaluating an application, an examining attorney conducts a search and notifies the applicant if a conflicting mark is found. The application fee, which covers processing and search costs, will not be refunded even if a conflict is found and the mark cannot be registered. To determine whether there is a conflict between two marks, the PTO determines whether there would be likelihood of confusion, that is, whether relevant consumers would be likely to associate the goods or services of one party with those of the other party as a result of the use of the marks at issue by both parties. The principal factors to be considered in reaching this decision are the similarity of the marks and the commercial relationship between the goods and services identified by the marks. To find a conflict, the marks need not be identical, and the goods and services do not have to be the same. The PTO does not conduct searches for the public to determine if a conflicting mark is registered, or is the subject of a pending application, except as noted above when acting on an application. However, there are a variety of ways to get this same type of information. First, by performing a search in the PTO public search library. The search library is located on the second floor of the South Tower Building, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202. Second, by visiting a patent and trademark depository library (at locations listed on pages 14 and 15). These libraries have CD-ROMS containing the trademark database of registered and pending marks. Finally, either a private trademark search company, or an attorney who deals with trademark law, can provide trademark registration information. The PTO cannot provide advice about possible conflicts between marks. Laws & Rules Governing Federal Registration The federal registration of trademarks is governed by the Trademark Act of 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq.; the Trademark Rules, 37 C.F.R. Part 2; and the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (2d ed. 1993). Other Types of Applications In addition to trademarks and service marks, the Trademark Act provides for federal registration of other types of marks, such as certification marks, collective trademarks and service marks, and collective membership marks. These types of marks are relatively rare. For forms and information regarding the registration of these marks, please call the appropriate trademark information number indicated below. Where to Send the Application and Correspondence The application and all other correspondence should be addressed to "The Assistant Commissioner for Trademarks, 2900 Crystal Drive, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3513." The initial application should be directed to "Box NEW APP / FEE." An AMENDMENT TO ALLEGE USE should be directed to "Attn. AAU." A STATEMENT OF USE or REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A STATEMENT OF USE should be directed to "Box ITU / FEE." (See page 5 for an explanation of these terms.) The applicant should indicate its telephone number on the application form. Once a serial number is assigned to the application, the applicant should refer to the serial number in all written and telephone communications concerning the application. It is advisable to submit a stamped, self-addressed postcard with the application specifically listing each item in the mailing, that is, the written application, the drawing, the fee, and the specimens (if appropriate). The PTO will stamp the filing date and serial number of the application on the postcard to acknowledge receipt. This will help the applicant if any item is later lost or if the applicant wishes to inquire about the application. The PTO will send a separate official notification of the filing date and serial number for every application about two months after receipt. Use of the "TM," "SM" and "®" Symbols Anyone who claims rights in a mark may use the TM (trademark) or SM (service mark) designation with the mark to alert the public to the claim. It is not necessary to have a registration, or even a pending application, to use these designations. The claim may or may not be valid. The registration symbol, ®, may only be used when the mark is registered in the PTO. It is improper to use this symbol at any point before the registration issues. Please omit all symbols from the mark in the drawing you submit with your application; the symbols are not considered part of the mark. Last Modified: 31 July 1995

1 0

COOL TOOLS for internet developers
by progress＠tnlb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you develope web sites? Do you charge for the time you spend developing web sites? Are you open to technology to help you better manage your time? Then Track-IT(tm) is the software for you ! See our wedb site http://www.dovico.com and download a FREE 14-day trial version (fully functional) today. Diane Doucet 1-506-855-4477

1 0

Re: Zergo Report
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Young wrote: > Thanks to Adam Back and Ross Anderson the full Zergo > Report on encryption use by the NHSnet is online at: > > http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/ukcrypto/zergo.html (139K) > > There may be action by HMG to prohibit publication in the > UK (and maybe elsewhere) so we've mirrored it at: > > http://jya.com/zergo-aba.htm > > Other mirrors encouraged. As the Department of Health is supposed to be sending this report to people who ask for it attempts at restricting distribution would be absurd. I've skimmed it - fairly boring - but I could understand Zergo being embarrassed. It's on my site now-ish. -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ##############################################################

1 0

Re: Trademarking CypherSpace???
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: > Seems to me I-Planet can't trademark a word which has been in usage by many > of us for several years. What could they do, demand that we stop using a > word we in all likelihood coined? Remove our old writings from the Web? > I don't know about trademark law, and about whether "prior use" invalidates > an attempted trademark. It seems unrealistic for them to lay claim to a > word someone else invented. The Kodak disposable camera I have in front of me says "Kodak, Fun and Gold are trade marks." and "(c) EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY, 1994" while I have 361 references to Gold, dated 1611, and it was very likely an old word then. These trademark assertions are daft. -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ##############################################################

2 1

Re: russia_1.html
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Trei: >The plutonium cores of thermonuclear devices have a limited shelf >life - he claimed 6 years, which jibes with what I've heard from >other open sources. Fission products build up in the cores which >can poison a chain reaction. Thus all Pu based devices need to have >the cores periodically removed and replaced with new ones, while the >old ones have to go through a non-trivial reprocessing stage to >remove the fission products. Decay, rather than fission, I suppose. I believe there's a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons in space. Not so surprising if they're inpractical - political points for nothing. Bill Frantz: >I think this comment is in error. Plutonium has a half life on the order >of 250,000 years, so very little decay products would build up in 6 years. >The tritium used in thermonuclear weapons has a much shorter half life, and >would need to be replaced about that often. Replacement of tritium is certainly the dominant need. As for the decay products - it depends how close they get to pure 239. Half-lives: (years) Pu 238 89 Pu 239 24000 Pu 240 6500 Pu 241 15 Pu 242 400000 D 0.015 T 12.3 Paul Pomes wrote: > >Even a fizzle with a yield in the hundreds of tons equivalent is respectable. >Plutonium decay products have a high neutron cross-section and steal the >fast neutrons necessary for the chain reaction to build. Sufficient amounts >can kill off the last three or more re-doublings which is where most of the >explosive power comes from. The only books I have to hand contain _thermal_ cross-sections. :( If it's an H-bomb I was under the impression you don't care that desperately about the size of the plute yield - only that it is enough to start the fusion. Anybody know what happened to the proposed fissionless H-bomb of the '60s ? Presumambly it never got working. Warm&ComfyMonger

2 2