December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

NYT (online only?) article on DigiCash Chapt. 11
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

...Wherein I get quoted in the NYT, for the first time in my life, using "bummed out". Oh, well. At least they spelled my name right... :-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rah(a)pop.sneaker.net Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:35:32 -0500 To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <dbs(a)philodox.com> From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: Electronic Cash for the Net Fails to Catch On Sender: <dbs(a)philodox.com> Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: <mailto:requests@philodox.com?subject=subscribe%20dbs> X-Web-Archive: http://www.philodox.com/dbs-archive/ --- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:28:03 -0500 From: "Robert A. Hettinga" <rah(a)philodox.com> Reply-To: rah(a)philodox.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rah(a)shipwright.com Subject: Electronic Cash for the Net Fails to Catch On http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/11/cyber/articles/28cash.html <fair use snippage> November 28, 1998 Electronic Cash for the Net Fails to Catch On By PETER WAYNER here are two conflicting epigrams that rule the computer industry. The first is that the pioneer gets all of the gold, and the second is that the pioneer gets all of the arrows in the back. Several recent high-profile failures in the electronic payment industry suggest that efforts to develop versions of electronic cash for the Internet are so far reaping more arrows than riches. Christine M. Thompson The most recent signal came as <http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/11/cyber/articles/#1>Digicash, a closely watched electronic payment company based in Palo Alto, Calif., filed for bankruptcy protection. The company was known for a collection of tools that made it possible for people to spend small amounts of money over the Internet using what is known as a digital wallet, software that handles transactions in a manner similar to cash. One advantage of the Digicash system is that, unlike credit cards, it allowed consumers to make purchases anonymously. While several major banks expressed interest in the Digicash system and a few actually began offering accounts, the company was unable to generate enough mass interest among merchants or consumers. Consumers were reluctant to use Digicash because there weren't many merchants who accepted it, and merchants didn't sign up to participate because consumers weren't demanding it as a payment option. Other companies that have tried to develop digital cash systems haven't fared much better. Last August, another pioneer, First Virtual, shut down its system for processing electronic cash transactions and began to focus on a new business, interactive messaging, according to a company spokeswoman, Cindy Alvarez. Another company, CyberCash, still offers a system called CyberCoin, but most of the company's revenue comes from processing credit card transactions. Industry observers suggest that one reason electronic payment systems haven't taken off is that consumers have become more comfortable using credit cards to make purchases online. Bill Curry, a spokesman for Amazon.com, said credit cards are used for "the overwhelming majority" of transactions on the company's site. "I think the reason is that we do have an encrypted secure server, and we guarantee the transaction. If there are unauthorized charges on your account as a result of shopping at Amazon.com, we'll pay the $50 that's not covered by your credit-card issuers." Bill Trevor, director of customer service at CDNow, said most of CDNow's customers enter their credit-card numbers on the site. "Our experience is showing that in the month of October, roughly four fifths of our customers felt secure enough to put their credit card in our online form. Almost all of the rest are checks or money order. There are a couple of percentage points for people who call us, fax us or e-mail their credit-card number, but it's less than 3 percent." Companies that process credit card transactions have found more success than the wallet-based businesses. CDNow allows customers to send a separate e-mail message with the credit card number encrypted with PGP, a significantly higher-grade of encryption than is normally used to protect most browser-based transactions. Companies that process credit card transactions for e-commerce Web sites have found more success than the wallet-based businesses, like Digicash. Keith Miller is an executive vice president of Ibill, a company that processes credit card transactions for Web merchants. "We looked into that whole thing when we started a couple of years ago," he said, referring to companies that were building separate software packages for processing payments. "Back then, our biggest competitors were the wallet companies. We went after the market saying, why do we need to reinvent something when we have something that works and is simple, easy and quick?" In the end, Ibill chose to make it simple for people to buy something online by typing a credit card number into a browser. The browser uses a security method known as SSL (Secure Socket Layers) to protect the data. This doesn't offer the same protection as the carefully designed wallets, but has so far been acceptable to consumers. This approach has become so popular that one of the wallet pioneers, Cybercash, has developed a similar system and now derives more profits from simple SSL-based credit card transactions than through the wallets the company continues to develop. What remains to be seen is whether digital cash systems will ever find a market. Paul Kocher, an expert on cryptography who has analyzed many digital payment mechanisms, said it would take the support of a major player for an electronic cash system to be successful. "If someone like Visa or IBM threw their weight behind a system and got a lot of backers, it might take off. I don't see how a small company like Digicash could ever get a system deployed and working." Digicash's plans for the future are uncertain, in part because the company must pay off past debts by holding what amounts to an auction of its technology. But the fact that some companies are interested in Digicash's patents indicates that there may still be hope for some sort of electronic payment system. In particular, industry observers say that these systems' ability to allow consumers to make purchases online anonymously may yet prove valuable. <more fair use snippage...> Related Articles <http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/11/biztech/articles/04card.html>Got a Dime? Citibank and Chase End Test of Electronic Cash (November 11, 1998) <http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/06/biztech/articles/22card.1.jpg>Code Br eaker Cracks Smart Cards' Digital Safe (June 22, 1998) Scott Loftesness, the interim chief executive of Digicash, said the company is exploring many different options and has already received one offer for some of its patents. One of the patents provides an easy way for someone to sign or authorize a document without reading it, a process that is often called a "blind signature." This is the foundation for the anonymity Digicash offers its customers and may also have a variety of other untapped applications. Robert Hettinga, a digital cash consultant and one of the organizers of the Financial Cryptography conference held annually in Anguilla, said, "I would like to try to get a syndicate together to buy the [blind signature] patent. We would hold it and license it in a way that everyone could use it. I would be really bummed out if they took that patent and locked it away for another eight years." Others are more cynical about the possibility that any micropayment model will ever become dominant. William Powar, a former Visa executive who is now a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, said one problem with digital wallet systems is that they are designed for small one-time purchases. "There's no market where pay per use is significant," he said. "Look at the cable model." Powar points out that while newspapers, magazines and cable operators offer one-time consumption options through newsstands or special cable subscriptions, the bulk of their revenue comes from subscriptions and advertising. This suggests to him that micropayment systems won't be a crucial part of the future of the Internet, which would diminish the need for digital cash systems. In the near future, the electronic digital transaction industry is focusing on another goal: processing bills for utilities, credit card companies, telephone companies and others who normally bill customers via postal mail. Several new ventures, like Ibill, as well as established companies like Netscape Communications Corp., are working on technologies to allow consumers to pay their bills online. Netscape's system, called BillerXpert, will let consumers pay bills over the Web using, among other options, the payment mechanism designed by CyberCash. The bill presentment industry hopes to save money on postage while also providing additional services, like personalized content. Related Sites These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web, and The Times has no control over their content or availability. <http://www.digicash.com>Digicash <http://www.cybercash.com>CyberCash <http://www.amazon.com>Amazon.com <http://www.cdnow.com>CDNow <http://www.ibill.com>Ibill <http://www.netscape.com>Netscape Communications Corp. Peter Wayner at <mailto:pwayner@nytimes.com>pwayner(a)nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions. <final bit of fair use snippage> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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' --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: naughty bits At 12:25 AM 12/1/98 +0100, Anonymous wrote: >NSA probably maintains surveillance of all or nearly all >encrypted remailers. They log and archive the content of Well shit yes, I pay enough taxes, you bet they do, or I'm not getting my fucking dollars worth. I only send via anon when I care only about the honest readers' opinion. Like I'd send dangerous shit over the IP. May as well fax it plaintext to the Ukraine. Bwah hah hah. If you were really going to pull a prank, you'd create a one-shot yahoo/hotmail/etc account from a cafe then wipe that platter clean (both FAT and lean). ---If your Correlators have pegged me, well, hello. Nice game.

1 0

SternFUD on RSA
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:) David Sternlight <david(a)sternlight.com> opines: > I am not on the Cypherpunks list. Given the tone of some posters I > don't' see that as a useful list. I wonder who won the pool on how long you would last before departing in a tiff. :) But I digress. > You already made this argument. It could have been (and perhaps was) > made in court. Despite that the patent was upheld. That is "I am > right and the court is wrong." I think that regulations which permit applied math to be patented are counterproductive, as do many other countries. Given that such regulations are in place in the United States, one would expect them to be upheld by the courts. Whether any of this is "wrong" in some abstract sense is a religious debate, in which I am uninterested. Let us examine the two statements: I. Certainly, given what was known at the time widespread data communications created a commercial demand for secure communication over insecure lines, a person setting out to create a software solution to the problem, knowing what was then known about cryptography, trapdoor functions, and other techniques, would almost certainly have employed modular exponentiation or discrete logs to solve the problem. If RSA hadn't been patented at the time it was, it most certainly would have been independently discovered by multiple individuals and widely employed, without the present licensing restrictions. Prior published works on cryptographic trapdoor functions involving the factoring of composites and possibly even encryption by modular exponentiation existed long before the RSA patent. II. Obvious prior art sufficient [in the current regulatory environment surrounding patents in the US] to invalidate the RSA patent in court has never been published. Now, given that these two statements are not opposites of each other, one is not going to refute the first by stating the second, no matter how big a bullhorn one employs. >> There is a huge difference between "prior art" and "invalidating prior >> art" under patent law. Indeed, to invalidate the patent, it would >> have been necessary not only to find a description of the mathematical >> methods used in the construction of the RSA algorithm, but also a >> claim for the specific use for secure communication over insecure data >> links. > It seems to me you are agreeing with my comment here. I have only argued that obvious prior art exists. I have also stated that I would favor a regulatory climate in which such obvious prior art would preclude a patent being granted. I have never stated that we currently live in such a regulatory climate. In fact, we do not. > Pretty far-fetched response. They tried to overturn the patent on > grounds of prior art. They failed. End of story. Many words, like "prior art," have specific legal meanings which differ from their common English usage. Kind of like economists arguing that there is no "demand" for food by poor people, because they have no money with which to purchase it. I use the term "obvious prior art" to mean prior publication of the essential methods and techniques with which a technically skilled person, given the same problem to solve, would arrive at the same or a similar solution. Put two graduate students at opposite ends of a wire, with the world's prior-to-1977 writings on cryptography, trapdoor functions, the intractablity of factoring the product of primes, and the modular exponentiation problem. I suspect the RSA Public Key Cryptosystem would not be long in emerging, even if one employed particularly dense graduate students. That is what I mean when I use the term "obvious prior art." > Again, it seems you've conceded my point here. What part of "nobody" > don't you understand? I was proceeding upon the assumption that the enumerated "points" you claimed I was making were ones with which you disagreed. If that is not the case, I am prepared to declare early victory. "Nobody could afford to litigate [against RSADSI]" is misleading, as even the wealthy don't employ the expensive option, when a cheap one is available. Besides, I have never contested that the current regulatory climate supports the patenting of things like RSA even in the presence of prior publication of the essential mathematical elements. >>> 6. Anyone can patent anything and nobody could afford to oppose them >>> (N.B. Presumably not IBM, not DEC, not DuPont, ..oh well, you get the >>> idea) >> Yes, David. Practically anything can be patented. The power of >> patents is in defending them, not in applying for them, or in >> receiving them. > Again you concede my point by ignoring the operative clause. What > part of "nobody" don't you understand? There were plenty of companies who had the financial power to squash RSADSI like a grape, and probably change the regulatory climate as well. There was no incentive for them to do so, and they probably have applied mathematical patents of their own which they are fond of. Had RSADSI sat on the patent, and refused to license it to others, both they and their patent would probably have had a very short life span. >>> 7. Rich, smart companies with big legal departments license bogus >>> patents rather than litigating. >> Well, that depends on how you define bogus. I consider patenting >> applied math to be bogus. Your mileage may vary. > RSA didn't patent applied math. They patented processes which may > use, or be described in part with applied math. Yes, the "method and apparatus" transformation. > The facts are that rich, smart companies litigate patents all the > time so your contention is false on its face. They rarely litigate patents where the cost to litigate is enormous, the technology may be cheaply licensed, and the chances of success, or of even trying to explain the topic to the average layman, are minimal. >> Someone who responds to a one line comment about the mathematical >> underpinnings of RSA being previously known, with several multipage >> essays whose central thesis is that such a claim cannot possible be >> true, because the patent would have been invalidated by the courts, is >> a troll who either understands nothing about how patents work, or is >> blowing a foghorn on behalf of the patent holder. > Another guilty plea. Well, I suppose Vin could just be a bored essayist in need of something to practice on. (Snicker) >>> 9. If someone takes the time to oppose me, someone must be funding him. >> Vin has already outed himself as someone who has done work for >> RSADSI. He has vociferously defended various key recovery schemes >> implemented in their products against critics. This, combined with >> his rabid insistance that the RSA patent is something novel and >> unique, does equate to what some of us might describe as a "vested >> interest" in the matter, directly funded or not. > Another failed refutation. Your words were unequivocal. I think you are having some difficulty separating out the sarcasm here. Besides, the suggestion that Vin has a vested interest in defending the RSA patent hardly translates into an assertion that everyone who disagrees with me on some subject is someone's paid agent. Abstraction from the specific to the general is not an accepted tool of inference. You, for instance, are probably quibbling for entirely different reasons. > I think the problem with most of your post is that you have taken the > odd exception or the odd passing issue and tried to make them out to > be the general case; in short your post was highly overblown as well > as redolent of personal attack. Had you discussed the issue more > temperately in terms of your factual claims it might have been more > useful. That sometimes happens when one party "summarizes" a flame war, and posts it elsewhere. Deal. >>> 10. The patent office never refuses patents on "method and apparatus" >>> except in the case of perpetual motion machines. >> Patent examiners generally rely only upon the material presented with >> the patent application when reviewing it, and expect people to do >> their own searches, and correctly cite related patents. Litigation is >> generally the means by which patents are challenged, not by the patent >> office refusing them, except in extrordinary circumstances, perpetual >> motion machines being one well-known example. > See above. You were unequivocal. "Practically anything" is not unequivocal, and is a correct description of the current patent review climate. > There may be cases of the sort you refer to, but it is not a general > argument which can then be applied to the case of the RSA patent. You > have repeatedly make the logical error of claiming that a specific > proved a general, and then applying the claimed general to a different > specific. Vin alleged that RSA being granted a patent proffered compelling evidence of the unique worth of the thing being patented. It is correct to apply general comments about the patent-granting climate to this specific case. For a better example of confusing generals and specifics, you may re-read your own comments on "if someone opposes me, someone must be funding them" above, incorrectly abstracting my comments about Vin to the general population. :) >>> 11. Security Dynamics is paying for those who oppose me. >> I merely asked if Vin intended to bill them for the time he spent >> writing his rants. A rhetorical question. > GIven the rest of your post, the inference was direct. If you did not > intend to imply that, you should not have used that languaging. Bzzzzzzzz. Wrong Answer. And we will have to deduct additional points for abstracting again from Vin to the general population vis a vis "Security Dynamics is paying for those who opppose me." The best you can get on this mid-term is now a C. :) >>> 12. Such opposition is "a tirade". >> Suggesting that I would have to retire my nym after criticizing the >> RSA patent and taking several pages to say a paragraph of material >> certainly qualifies as a tirade in my book, especially when combined >> with a lot of irrelevent innuendo unrelated to the topic being >> discussed. > Since most of his post was factual, it was not a tirade. Most of the factual material refuted nothing I was claiming, and refuted things I wasn't claiming, such as Jevon's book containing a complete description of PKC, as opposed to being the earliest known work which contained something related to the topic. Again, an attempt to impress people with the volume of the evidence, rather than with its quality, which when combined with the occasional snide remark, meets my definition of "tirade." > You are trying to discredit the bulk of his post with a > characterization of a small portion that doesn't apply to the whole, > and may not even apply to the portion. His post is discredited because it fails to address any of my points about the RSA patent, and instead argues forcibly for a collection of self-evident surrogate issues, carefully selected for their ability to be easily confused with the real ones. >>> 13. No corporations are buying products with GAK, key recovery, etc. >>> (N.B. in That is what "no corporate demand" means). >> To an economist, perhaps. It would be more accurate to say that >> demand as a function of whether such features are included is a >> pretty flat function. > You didn't say that. You said "no corporate demand". I understand the > word "no" because English is my mother tongue. "Demand" in common English usage means that something is being clamored for. In Economic terms, it means half of the phrase "supply and demand" which is something entirely different, said economic demand existing for anything which is purchased. > that the demand curve has a particular (flat) shape, did you make that > up or did you rely on empirical evidence? I believe that surveys by privacy groups long ago showed that GAK/Key Escrow/Key Recovery was not being clamored for by corporate America, although attempts were being made to incentivize it by the intelligence and law enforcement communities. > Your statement that "demand as a function of" X is a pretty flat > function is also nonsense economics. Perhaps you meant to say that the > _quantity demanded_ is invariant over whether these features are > included or not. I was using "demand" in its ordinary English usage. You were using it as an economic term, in an attempt to call the mere fact that GAK/Key Escrow/Key Recovery-enabled software was purchased at all "demand" for it. Which, to use one of Clinton's favorite phrases, was "technically accurate, although misleading." :) > Or perhaps you meant to say that the demand curve as a function of X > was 'one-to-one onto' itself. Uh, no. That was definitely not what I was saying. I don't think it is what you are trying to say either, but thanks for using "1-1" and "onto" in a sentence about functions. > To test your hypothesis, you'd have to show that if two versions were > offered simultaneously, one with and one without X, no corporate buyer > would prefer the version with X. That would kind of depend on how "X" was priced, would it not? If you give things away for free, people will probably take one in case they need it someday, as it costs them nothing. This does not equate to "demand," or "clamoring." > I leave the reason that would the the dispositive experiment as an > exercise. Hint: It's utility economics. Hint: It's not quite English. >>> 14. Someone who opposes stronger escrow/GAK/key recovery than RSA is >>> offering must be suspect. >> Your point here eludes me. > You said that he opposed escrow/GAK/key recovery except up to the > point offered by RSA. That translates as he opposes such things if > they were stronger than those offered by RSA. Nothing suspect about > that--he simply agrees with the decision point RSA chose as to how > strong to make such things. That's one possible explanation. To test your hypothesis, we should see how well Vin's agreement tracks RSA's inclusion of additional encrow/GAK/recovery features in the future. He may have to change the name of "The Privacy Guild" to something less impressive. >>> I could go on ... >> And you usually do, and on, and on, and on... > And now you're diverging from the facts and logic of the matter to > personal attack. It reveals the same flaw that invalidated your > original post. I'm sure you've been attacked before, by people a lot less nice than myself. :) >> I simply believe that patents on applied math are inappropriate. >> Given that they are allowed, it seems silly to cite the fact that the >> courts uphold them as evidence for anything, particularly claims that >> they are new, novel, and non-obvious. > Had you said that we could have had a rational discussion. Points in > the discussion would have included: > 1. Even patent law agrees with you; the RSA patent is a process > patent and not a patent on applied math. Hmmm. Well, patents on pure math are not allowed, ergo, math must be suitably transformed in order to be patented. > 2. Patents purely on applied math, are, as far as anyone here knows > not allowed. You may exponentiate to your heart's content as long as > you don't practice the RSA algorithm as part of a crypto system. There is a fundamental difference between telling me I cannot practice modular exponentiation to communicate with people without licensing it, and telling me I cannot make RDRAMs without licensing that. I am unlikely to replicate the RDRAM design by accident. I am quite likely to derive a given bit of mathematics given the application for it. If RSA can be patented, why not something like Householder transforms, or cluster analysis, or the quadratic formula? Sounds like the slippery slope to me. > 3. The court didn't uphold a patent on applied math; it upheld a > process patent on a crypto system that, among other things, uses > applied math. So does almost any engineering design. There is a fundamental difference between a physical machine whose design required the use of mathematics, and an abstract mathematical transformation, which may exist only in an instance of some computer program performing a certain task. > 4. The particular process patent was found to be new, novel, and > non-obvious. There was ample opportunity for Cylink to try to refute > that. They failed. End of story. Again, returning to the top of our discussion, the existence of "obvious prior art" for RSA in the common English sense meaning of "obvious prior art" has little to do with whether patents are upheld in the current regulatory climate in the United States. It would be simple to test your hypothesis, by simply giving trapdoor functions replete with useful identities to two people, and telling they have to construct a common secret unknown to a third party monitoring their communication. I cannot imagine a technically skilled person taking very long to make the transition from some "one-way" functions, to a practical implementation of D-H, RSA, or whatever. That would be my definition of "obvious." > Now we've discussed all the above substance before, and my purpose in > reciting the four points isn't to re-open the topic, but to show that > your definition of what the topic is is simply incorrect. My posts. My topic. Your posts. Your topic. Works for me. :) > Given that, I don't propose to discuss the above four points yet > again. They aren't there to reopen the discussion, but to show that > your statement of the issue is inaccurate. My statement is point "I" at the beginning of this message. Please re-read it and tell me whether or not you agree with it. -- Sponsor the DES Analytic Crack Project http://www.cyberspace.org/~enoch/crakfaq.html

2 1

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perhaps of interest to locals... EE380 Computer Systems Colloquium Fall Quarter 1998-1999 Lecture #10 Date: Wednesday, Dec 2, 1998 Time: 4:15-5:30 pm Location: NEC Auditorium (B03) Gates Computer Science Building Internet: Live on the Net! See instructions on the Web page http://www-leland.stanford.edu/class/ee380 ********************************************************************** Title: Cracking the Data Encryption Standard: Technology, Design, and Politics Speaker: John Gilmore The Electronic Frontier Foundation About the talk: Sometimes it takes good engineering to straighten out twisted politics. In 1997, working in conjunction with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, John Gilmore decided to demonstrate this by building a custom computer that would be able to solve the Data Encryption Standard, an encoding scheme the United States Government had been promoting for "secure" business and financial communications since the 1970s. It had long been suspected the Government was pressing citizens to use this standard because its intelligence agencies were secretly able to decode DES-encrypted messages. It appears this theory was right. DES *was* crackable -- easily and affordably -- which Mr. Gilmore demonstrated in July, 1998 by using his "DES Cracker" system to solve in less than three days a coded message that had been produced as part of a DES-decryption contest. In this presentation Mr. Gilmore will discuss the design of the DES Cracker system and explain some of the politics surrounding the DES controversy. Note: A full description of the DES Cracker system, including complete hardware and software design details, appears in the book, "Cracking DES: Secrets of Encryption Research, Wiretap Politics, & Chip Design," published by O'Reilly. Further details can also be found at: http://www.eff.org/descracker/ About the speaker: John Gilmore is an entrepreneur and civil libertarian. He was an early employee of Sun Microsystems, and co-founded Cygnus Solutions, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Cypherpunks, and the Internet's "alt" newsgroups. He has twenty-five years of experience in the computer industry, including programming, hardware and software design, management, and investment, and is a significant contributor to the worldwide open source (free software) development effort. Mr. Gilmore's advocacy efforts on encryption policy aim to improve public understanding of this fundamental technology for privacy and accountability in open societies. He led the team that built, in conjunction with the EFF, the world's first published DES Cracker. He is a board member of the Internet Society and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Further background information may be found at: http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/ Contact information: John Gilmore gnu(a)toad.com

1 0

RE: "Export" controls
by Trei, Peter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Anonymous" wrote: > >Can you give me an example of a commercial vendor who has suffered > >because someone bought a "dangerous" product ( Windows, for example ) at > >retail and carried it out of the country in a suitcase? My guess would > > I cannot give such example because hard crypto products are not available > to > the general public. > > I am unaware that microshit OS has hard crypto built-in. The only hard > crypto > package I have ever seen for sale at mail-order (and thus not anonymous) > is > NAI's PGP (and I have never seen any hard crypto available in a store for > cash > - but that can only mean that there is no perceived demand). > [Trei, Peter] Huh? I got my copy of NAI PGP 5.0 off of the shelf at CompUSA, a major retail chain (I did pay with plastic, but am 99.999...% certain that cash would have been accepted). The box *is* marked 'Not for export', but I don't recall seeing any other restrictions. Either 'anonymous' hasn't looked hard enough, or he/she/it's in another country. Peter Trei ptrei(a)securitydynamics.com [I apologize for the lousy formatting. I'm using a Microsoft product to sent this message.]

1 0

Sternlight on Cypherpunks
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sternlight has denied us! David Sternlight <david(a)sternlight.com> writes: > I am not on the Cypherpunks list. Given the tone of some posters I > don't' see that as a useful list. > I never participated in that list. It was suggested to me by a very > senior member of the list that all the wrangling typical of that list > meant it wasn't worth the time, and I took his advice. I never had sex with that woman. -Bill Clinton I never participated in that list. -David Sternlight Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't David join the list some time ago, and depart with a giant PLONK when someone called him a "statist"? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

somebody clue this person in please!
by HyperReal-Anon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ken Williams <jkwilli2(a)unity.ncsu.edu> wrote: >i'm laughing too damned hard to do it myself. >In a message dated 11/30/98 10:15:50 AM EST, jkwilli2(a)unity.ncsu.edu writes: > >> Get Your Private, Free, Encrypted Email at http://www.nsa.gov > >I looked around there site and couldnt find anything about geting a e-mail >could you please be more specific. Why do you find this such a surprise? This is typical behavior for AOLholes. We've all tried for years to clue such lamers in, and all we've ever gotten in return are more "solicited" spam, and more unsolicited spam, and it's worse because they're no longer concentrated at one site.

1 0

New Brady Bill Implications
by Carol Anne Cypherpunk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm watching Headline News, and they are reporting that "now", under new provisions in the Brady Bill, and 'instant' background check is being made. This even is for simple rifles and shotguns. Just think, soon there might be 'instant' background checks, even just to use simple 56 bit DES. Or somewhere lurking around in your browser code, a teeny tiny program that sends a cookie to the NSA, FBI, etc every time you use crypto. Who knows, it's probably there already. Or a realtime NCIS check to buy a copy of PGP! Wild! cab8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0 Comment: PGP 6.0 is the "The Living End". iQA/AwUBNmOomDiM2656VXArEQLQRQCgg3l0PO8DOzkj/7McAUI8gQSC03cAnRhk AybC39FkOKoV7ZQUvJcuFTT8 =9sxR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Member Internet Society - Certified Mining Co. Guide - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.165.50.96 http://www.primenet.com/~carolab http://www.ozones.com/~drozone - The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** Will lobby Congress for Food & Expenses!!!

6 8

Jim Bell Update
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forward No. 1 (11/30/98): Jim has been back in the Seattle/Tacoma jail for about a week & 1/2, after a stop-over in Oklahoma City. Not doing much, but is glad to be back because he likes the food better and he has things to do, unlike in Springfield. He doesn't know what the schedule is for his stay at this point, except that there is an attempt to impose more time to his sentence, which he says by the time they accomplish anything in court he will have fulfilled anyway. He requests once again that anyone who would like to help him research the names/addresses of people he thinks are involved in the surveillance efforts against him, to please contact him. His address again is: James Bell #26906086 Federal Detention Center P.O. Box 68976 Seattle WA 98168 ---------- Forward No. 2 (11/30/98): After spending several weeks in Oklahoma, then several more in Springfield, MO, a shrink interviewed Jim for a total of six hours, and said he could find nothing wrong that they could help with. After several more weeks in Springfield, it was back to Oklahoma, for a couple more weeks, and now he is finally back at Sea-Tac. He reports that the prosecutor is asking for 9 months for violation of parole, which would mean Jim might be released in 3 months. He is on Prozac and seems in pretty good spirits. Opinions seem unchanged. ----------

1 0

CJ Update
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forward (11/26/98): They moved CJ from Springfield on the 18th. He is in Oklahoma City awaiting movement supposedly next week. I talked with him and he sounded okay. He would like to receive copies of what has been written and posted about him. He doen't know where he is going. His lawyer should find out next week.

1 0

Process Serving Court Filing Searches
by Bill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.select-document.com /////////////////////////////////////////////////// To be removed from future mailings, please send an email to mailto:4lemy@lycosmail.com?subject=remove ///////////////////////////////////////////////////

1 0

Build Your Own Cable TV Descrambler for less than $9.99.
by cabgirly333＠hotmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cable Television Descrambler - Easy To Make ! Build your own Cable Television Descrambler with ONLY 7 parts from Radio Shack for UNDER $10.00. (don't hit reply, please check bottom of message for more references) --------------------- (Last minute update: "I've seen my letter and instructions sent by individuals that besides violating copy-right laws, are neither responding to the customer nor providing the original, complete set of plans and instructions. Please be advised you are risking your money and patience by ordering from individuals who know nothing regarding this tech/electrical matter" --Raul Mendez) Build your own Cable Television Descrambler with ONLY 7 parts from Radio Shack for UNDER $10.00. REQUIRED SUPPLIES: ================== 1 - Radio Shack mini-box (part #270-235) 1 - < watt resistor. 2.2k-2.4k ohm (part #271-1325) 1 - 75pf-100pf variable capacitor (special order) 2 - F61A chassis-type connectors (part #278-212) 12" - No. 12 solid copper wire 12" - RG59 coaxial cable Tools required: screwdriver & drill. Soldering gun & solder (optional). Get ALL the Premium Movie Channels, Pay per View and Adult Entertainment Channels for... FREE, FREE, FREE !!! Now, if I have your attention... let me tell you how this fantastic opportunity came about. My name is Raul. I live in New York City, New York. I have season tickets to our citys hockey team. I invited a friend of mine to one of the games this last October. He said, "Id love to go if you can have me back home by 10:00 p.m." I told him that some games run just past 10:00 p.m. and would he mind we stay if the game was close. His response was, "No, tonight is the Mike Tyson - Evander Holyfield boxing match and I have it on pay per view" I said, "do you mind if I watch the fight with you"? He said, "sure, no problem". So we go watch this great fight on cable pay per view and we are the only two guys at my friends house. After the fight (since it was so good) I offered to pay half of the cost for the fight. My friends answer was, "no, no, thats not necessary... I got the fight for FREE!". I said to him, "for free, dont those fights cost around $40.00 a pop?" He told me, "yes, they do, but I bought a cable descrambler box from an acquaintance of mine for $300.00". He further explained that this "little black box" gets ALL the pay per view events available! It also tunes in ALL the premium movie channels and ALL the adult entertainment channels. My response (without hesitation) was, "I gotta have one!" "$300.00, no problem where do I pay !!!" Im serious, I was excited. Lifetime premium movie channels, pay per view and adult entertainment all for a one-time fee of $300.00... no way!!! "No way" was right. The guy that sold my buddy the box was no where to be found. I was really disappointed. It was now time for desperate measures. I begged and pleaded with my friend until he agreed to let me take his box apart piece by piece to see how to make one for myself. Luckily it was very easy, if it wasnt simple I knew their was a slight chance it was not going back together so pretty. Now the rest is history... Ive got my own box which I built with my own two hands. Would you like to build one yourself ?!?! If so, would you pay $300.00. Maybe so, maybe not. Probably not, unless you saw one work first. But since that is not possible, I will sell you a complete set of instructions on how to build one yourself for a measly $9.99. However, at that price YOU MUST ALSO ENCLOSE A #10 SELF ADDRESSED STAMPED ENVELOPE WITH 55 CENTS POSTAGE AFFIXED. You might ask, is this some type of rip-off scam deal. The answer is NO! Everything has specific mechanics of how and why they do what they do. We are just used to flipping a switch or pushing a button or moving the mouse across our computer pads. It all happens because of a certain set of processes. The cable television descrambler is no different. However, for legal purposes I must add to this letter that this offer and set of instructions shall be void where prohibited by law and the assembling of parts necessary to make this "little jewel" work is for educational purposes only. To order a set of the instructions send $9.99 by cash, check or money order payable to: Raul Mendez Enterprises, 50 Lexington Av suite 209, New York city, NY 10010 I will mail your order out within 24 hours of receiving it. Further, I will give you a refund upon written request if you are unsatisfied for any reason. Happy Holidays !!! Sincerely, Raul Mendez P.S.: The use of this mini-box if you choose to go on and see if your creation works requires no alteration of your existing cable system. You simply screw it in, right behind your television. P.P.S.: Without the instructions its like figuring out how to set the clock on your VCR. With the instructions, you are guaranteed success.

1 0

NZ or LA in Y2K
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:54 PM 11/30/98 -3000, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >But objectively, there is a large category of people who are bored >with their current lifestyle and gleefully expect a "total breakdown" >of the society so that they could shoot live man sized targets instead >of boring paper targets. > >They are likely to be disappointed by Y2K, or so I expect. (again, >my expectation that social breakdown is not likely to happen does >not preclude me from reasonable preparations) When the power goes out, the rioting and looting starts in the cities. (This isn't New Zealand, baby, this is LA) When the rioters get bored, they'll get into cars. When they run out of gas, they'll stay where they are stranded as the gas pumps don't work. Some fine huntin' then, bubba. Mr. Moisin-Nagant

2 1

y2k+oil refineries
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

a disturbing post on the idea that maybe embedded systems in refineries are so "embedded" they can't even be reached/ isolated. also hugely ubiquitous.... ------- Forwarded Message > > Gary North's Y2K Links and Forums > > 1998-11-30 13:28:22 > Subject: > Fuel Production Plants > Comment: > Let's hope this informant is wrong. If you have counter-evidence, contact me > at P. O. Box 8000, Tyler, TX 75711. > > * * * * * * * * > > I have one very, very reliable source within that industry who tells me that > the oil refining industry can't cope with the task. I am told that the problem > of embedded systems can NOT be fixed EVER, no matter how much time were > allowed. WHY? Because the refineries themselves would have to be dismantled to > uncover these embedded systems. Essentially, the refineries would have to be > destroyed and rebuilt!!! These embedded systems are buried within enclosed > systems. Identifying, testing and replacing these systems is too impractical. > It is financially unsound to do so. The better option is to build new ones. > There is no time to do this with less than 400 days left and the time to build > a new refinery is 3 to 5 years. > > So, what does this mean? My sources, especially the most reliable source tell > me that it means that on January 1, 2000... the oil and gas refineries will > cease operations. These facilities also have converted their inventory > management control systems to small inventory levels so that inventory levels > are running about 1 to 2 days capacity. A few years ago, the industry averaged > a 1 to 6 month supply in storage tanks. Not so today. > > The results: By 1/5/2000 there will be no gasoline, no diesel fuel, no natural > gas, no heating oil, no fuel oil products at all. This means trains will have > no fuel. Trucks will have no fuel. Cars will have no fuel. Electric Power > Plants will have no oil for fuel, nor coal... because there will be no fuel to > power the vehicles to get it to them. So, there will be no electricity. And > you know the remaining domino schematic from that point.

1 0

I Got Mine
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I received my visit from the friendly IRS guys tonight, asking about CJ/Toto. It seems that they had a copy of two emails (which they took from his confiscated computer) with my name on them - one of them the one in which I chastized him for sending a threatening letter to Billg. According to the headers in the message which they showed to me, Toto forwarded my reply through remailer(a)replay.com, Anon-To: billg. They wanted to know about my associations with Toto (I still think of him by that name), of course, of which I had none except through email. In our conversation, I discovered things that I didn't know about Toto's situation: that he had sent threatening letters to the Mounties, and that he had threated to kill the judge trying Jim's case. This is why he will be held and tried in the local jail - because the potential victims (besides the Mounties) are in this area. (sigh) I'm afraid CJ really went over the edge here and backed himself up in a corner. I should have chastized him more severely and counseled him against rash acts of unkindness (not that I hold myself responsible for what he did, but he did pay attention to me). Kind of amusingly, one of them asked if CJ had ever asked me to join the Circle of Eunuchs! heh. I explained that it was Toto's Art imitating Life, creating stories about a revolutionary group based on the list discussions, and that I suspected he called it the Circle of Eunuchs because of the accusations ( by *some people* )that cpunks are ineffectual. We had a bit of discussion on a number of things, including the subject of free speech and how close one can get to it before being subject to arrest. I asked them what that crucial point was when this would happen, since there is no crime until action is actually taken. They said this would be when a direct threat is made and a specific name is mentioned. I referenced as an example the web site which some group put up containing a list of the names of abortion-performing doctors, mentioned in the press as a 'hit list'. They said that a web site with a list of names is not a problem. It is when statements are made about killing the individuals on the list that a person would have "crossed the line". One of the investigators also brought up the issue of the conflict between free speech vs life & liberty, of when one infringes on the other (as in threatening to take away someone's life). I remarked that one must always be prepared for the unexpected, and they made some points about taking threats seriously and the necessity of government agents looking out for their personal safety. I asked if cypherpunks would actually be subpoenaed to appear at CJ's trial. They said it depends on CJ: if he accepts a deal, he would likely get a reduced sentence, but if he takes them to trial then there could be quite a number of Cpunks called forth. I suggested if that happens we could all go out to dinner : ) and they thought this would be quite interesting. One of the investigators expressed a great interest in the cpunk dicussions and concepts; I described something of what the list is about and the flow of subscribers through it, and referred him to the archives, saying '94-'95 were some good years. I'm sure given a little time and several dinners we could convert him to the Dark Side. <g> .. Blanc

12 33

Fwd: FC: Gun groups take aim at new FBI database
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998 21:50:05 -0500 >To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Subject: FC: Gun groups take aim at new FBI database >Sender: owner-politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >X-URL: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > > > >http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/16561.html > > Gun Groups Take Aim at Database > by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)wired.com) > > 4:45 p.m. 1.Dec.98.PST > WASHINGTON -- A controversial FBI > database that records gun buyers' > names, addresses, and Social Security > numbers is "a national surveillance > system" that violates the law. > > So says the National Rifle Association in a > motion for a preliminary injunction filed > Monday in US District Court. > > [...] > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology >To subscribe: send a message to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu with this text: >subscribe politech >More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >

3 3

Re: NZ or LA in Y2K
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:51 AM 12/1/98 -0600, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >I am now considering another possibility: what happens if the power DOES >NOT go out? What would the gunnuts do? Um, start shooting the insulators and pole-transformers? :-P Or, if the power does go out but >looting does not start, would the gunnuts shoot some blacks that they >mistake for "looters" but who are just walking down the streets? Now you're confusing arms fanciers and survivalists with violent racists. Get a grip.

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know this is a little off topic, but has anyone verified the integrity of a web site called "Spy & CounterSpy" located at http://www.spycounterspy.com/? The site is basically a citizens' guide to counterintelligence, and covers topics ranging from anonymous email and encryption to evading FBI surveillance. The author, Lee Adams, claims to have years of experience in these areas but I'm wondering if this site isn't quite what it appears to be -- a site put up by some freedom-loving guy who wants to help everyone enjoy their privacy.

3 3

Matt Blaze arrested???
by jim finder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I heard a shocking thing on the radio a few minutes ago. I'm <*really*> sorry I didn't hear the whole report but I'm hoping someone here can shed some light, According to the report a Bell Labs mathematician named Blaze was arrested at the O'Hare airport today, in some kind of FBI sting operation. I didn't hear the whole segment, but it sounded like it had something to do with passing classified (crypto?) information to a foreign government. The part of the report that I heard didn't say what kind of info or what he was charged with, but I got the impression that it was either some kind of ITAR thing or maybe espionage. They did say it was part of a long term sting operation and mentioned something (that I didn't hear clearly) about "other arrests" that either already happened or were likely to happen soon. Was this Matt Blaze? It sure sounds like it must be. Is there a crackdown going on? Has anyone else been busted? Does anyone have more complete information about this? Jim ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

7 6

SASMF, Part 2
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Space Aliens Stole My Freedom, Part 2 Know Your Spineless SheepleNeighbor(TM) If the banks can be required to Know Their Customers, maybe you can be required to Know Your Neighbor. This is already an established system in Cuba, so importing it should be cheap, fast and easy. ----- "Know Your Neighbor" Requirements AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The FBI is proposing to issue regulations requiring FBI-supervised citizen-residents to develop and maintain "Know Your Neighbor" programs. As proposed, the regulations would require each citizen-resident to develop a program designed to determine the identity of its neighbors; determine its neighbors' sources of gossip and political views; determine the normal and expected comings and goings of its neighbors; monitor household activity for things that are inconsistent with those normal and expected activities; and report any activities of its customers that are determined to be suspicious, in accordance with the FBI's existing suspicious activity reporting regulations. By requiring citizen- residents to determine the identity of their neighbors, as well as to obtain knowledge regarding the legitimate activities of their neighbors, the proposed regulations will reduce the likelihood that citizen- residents will become unwitting participants in illicit activities conducted or attempted by their neighbors. It also will level the playing field between citizen-residents that already have adopted formal Know Your Neighbor programs and those that have not. --- Minimum steps to take to comply with the Know Your Customer rule. Identify the neighbor. Paragraph (d)(2)(i) requires that the Know Your Neighbor program provide a system for determining the true identity of prospective neighbors. If a citizen-resident has reasonable cause to believe that it lacks sufficient information to know the identity of an existing neighbor, paragraph (d)(4)(ii)(A) also requires that the program provide a system for determining the identity of that neighbor. --- Determine the source of people and property. Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) requires that the Know Your Neighbor program provide a system for determining the source of a neighbor's possessions and household members. The amount of information needed to do this can depend on the type of neighbor in question. Determine normal and expected comings and goings. Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) requires that the Know Your Neighbor program provide a system for determining a neighbor's normal and expected comings and goings involving the citizen-resident. A citizen-resident's understanding of a neighbor's normal and expected comings and goings should be based on information obtained both when a neighbor relationship is established and during a reasonable period of time thereafter. It also should be based on normal comings and goings for similarly situated neighbors. Without this information, a citizen- resident is unable to identify suspicious comings and goings. Determine if activity should be reported. Once an activity is identified as inconsistent with normal and expected behavior, paragraph (d)(2)(v) requires that a citizen-resident determine if the activity warrants the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report. This is consistent with a citizen-resident's existing obligations under 12 CFR 353.3(a). --- A. Reasons for and objectives of the proposed rule. The proposed Know Your Neighbor rule is designed to deter and detect neighborhood crimes, such as plots to establish "Constitutional government," gathering of information about alleged "crimes" committed by government agents, and meeting to discuss subversive literature such as the Constitution. B. Requirements of the proposed rule. The proposed rule would require citizen-residents to identify their neighbors, determine their neighbors' normal and expected activities, determine their neighbors' sources of possessions and household members, monitor neighbors' activities to find those that are not normal and expected, and, for activities that are not normal and expected, identify which are suspicious. Know Your Neighbor monitoring would be similar to monitoring that citizen-residents already do. For example, citizen-residents monitor neighbor activities to ensure that comings and goings exceeding 100 per month are reported under the Neighborhood Secrecy Act, to ensure that neighbors do not overuse their driveways and sidewalks, and to ensure that required comings and goings accurate and timely. ----- Editor's Note: The worst part of this parody is that it's true. Cuba, like most communist dictatorships, has a highly developed system of block watchers. They are responsible for all of the foregoing, making their reports to the secret police. The U.S. government is instituting a system of "bank account watchers," toadies in the supine, excruciatingly closely regulated banking industry, who will have to "know you," get to know your normal and expected bank account activity, and watch your bank account activity to detect and report "Suspicious Transactions." Welkomm to Orwell's 1984. Welkomm to Nazi Amerika. Hold your arm out straight... there... this will just sting a bit... Does anyone not get it yet? There is _nothing_ in the Constitution that gives the federal government any power to subject the American people to financial surveillance, to restrict or require reporting of cash transactions in any quantities, to restrict or encumber firearms ownership to anyone not actually serving time in a prison, or to do _any_ of the onerous abominations being thrust upon us in new and terrible forms almost daily. Does anyone not get it yet? The federal government is forfeiting, just as fast as its android minions can think up new ways to do it, its last shreds of any claim to legitimacy. They may as well fly the skull and crossbones over government buildings. Their occupation army of marauding thugs is _here_, bringing to ghastly life the very words of the bill of particulars laid against King George III of England by the Founders of this now-decayed, now-corrupt, hollow Republic, in the Declaration of Independence. Do they _never_ learn? (Obviously not) Will we _have_ to go through it all again? (Obviously yes) Has the line been crossed? (Obviously yes) Has force been initiated? (Obviously yes) Has the federal government placed itself outside the law? (Obviously yes) So be it. Cry "Havoc!" and let loose the dogs of war. The Revolution is upon us. We have nothing to lose but our imminent slavery. Sam Adams has a piece of advice: Keep your own counsel. Translation: Do your own thing and don't look to prop up your courage with the flawed courage and lack of trustworthiness of others. Don't be a groupie -- be a commando. Required re-reading: http://www.dhc.net/~toarms/henry.htm FuckingFedUpMonger

1 0

Check out the New ZDNet and ZDTV Forums!
by ZDNet Announce 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Forum Member: If you are reading this message, you are a participant in the ZDNet or ZDTV message boards (a.k.a. ZDNet Forums or Community). I would like to take this opportunity to tell you about some changes that will affect you on December 8. We are moving from our current forum software, called Podium, to version 1.0 of new forum software created by Deja News. On Dec. 8, when you follow a link or bookmark to one of our forums, you will be directed to the new software automatically. You don't have to download or install anything -- our forums remain entirely Web-based -- but the apearance and functions of the forums will be different. All your messages posted in Podium are being brought over, so your conversations won't miss a beat. We have been testing the Deja News software in three of our current forums for several months, and we have also created a test forum so you can try out the software and give us your feedback. We know that any change is disruptive; you will have to re-learn some forum functions and get used to a new interface. We apologize in advance for the hassle. We felt the switch to the Deja News software was the only way to improve the performance and reliability of the forums, plus the new software has a better search engine and great possibilities for integrating Usenet newsgroups into our offerings. If you have not yet had a chance to try out the new software, you can do so at any one or all of the forums listed below: Test Forum http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/zdn11202/f5.dejanews.com/frames/test.html Help Channel General Discussion http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/zdn11202/f5.dejanews.com/frames/generaldiscuss… Microsoft Office http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/zdn11202/f5.dejanews.com/frames/msoffice.html Gadget Gab http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/zdn11202/f5.dejanews.com/frames/gadget.html Please give us your feedback about the new software in the Test Forum. We are using your comments to make the software work better, so we appreciate as much of participation as possible. In addition to the new software, we will be merging several forums. Over the months, ZDNet and ZDTV have created a number of overlapping message boards, and some forums have lost their appeal to users. As part of the switch to Deja News, we'll be integrating forums on similar topics. As a result, expect most forums to be busier after Dec. 8. Thank you for your time and effort. We are looking forward to seeing you in the new forums, and we are glad to have you as a part of the ZDNet Community. We will send you just a few more e-mails like this one to keep you up-to-date on the switch, but we promise not to continue spamming you after the transition is complete. Regards, Wendy Frankwich ZDNet and ZDTV Community http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/zdn11202/www.zdnet.com http://chkpt.zdnet.com/chkpt/zdn11202/www.zdtv.com _______________________________________________________________________ To be removed from this list, simply reply to this message with "unsubscribe" as your subject.

1 0

Re: "Export" controls
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Can you give me an example of a commercial vendor who has suffered >because someone bought a "dangerous" product ( Windows, for example ) at >retail and carried it out of the country in a suitcase? My guess would I cannot give such example because hard crypto products are not available to the general public. I am unaware that microshit OS has hard crypto built-in. The only hard crypto package I have ever seen for sale at mail-order (and thus not anonymous) is NAI's PGP (and I have never seen any hard crypto available in a store for cash - but that can only mean that there is no perceived demand). However, any hard crypto that would work on system level and encrypt all communications is not available for purchase (it is available for free, though, in the form of IPSec package with 128-bit block ciphers for *BSD operating systems.) There is a number of VPN companies that offer crypto boxes, but AFAIK they either do not mention crypto scheme they use or they say DES. There is only one VPN company that advertises 128-bit crypto in it's product. >> [ For example, try to buy one of IBM crypto-cards - give them a call >> and ask what does it take to purchase one with hard crypto on it >> >Save me the phone call and describe your experience. BTW - IBM derives a You'll miss all the fun. After talking to 5-6 departments one concludes that no one knows anything about 4758, but they are all nice and helpful, and forward your call to each other. 4758 does not exist for casual callers. My guess is that if you have been dealing with IBM for some time you may be able to get it. To recap, there are no hard crypto drop-in hardware products available to general public in the USA today. >just write a damn book, source, VHDL etc. You can even export that. My The question is how to make money by selling hard crypto in the US. NAI seems to be the only company that can get away with so-called "publishing exception" in the commercial world. Their joining the key recovery alliance is probably unrelated :-) >Disk encryptor - SCSI/EIDE, a bump in the wire between the motherboard >and the disk drive. With its own smartcard/keypad interface, keys are >never seen by OS. It doesn't solve the security problem while the system There are many neat ideas. But no hardware.

1 0

L5 algorithm patent, and free eval version
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Joey Roa wrote: > My name is Joey Roa and I am Professional Services Team Leader of JAWS > Technologies Inc. I have recently become aware of your list. A colleague > ... > The L5 algorithm is not yet published as we are waiting assurances from out > patent attorneys that we have some protection for marketing purposes. Hello Joey et all, Now that L5 has been patented, will you and your colleagues at Jaws Technology make the L5 algorithm details available to the professional cryptography community for independant verification. Could you also provide the Canadian and/or US patent numbers? (Announcement of L5 patent: <http://www.newswire.ca/releases/October1998/27/c6731.html>) To cypherpunks readers, the free "shareware" version is available from: <http://www.jawstech.com/products/jawsl5/download-free-trial/L5_ShareWare_Se…> I think the coderpunks readers might enjoy playing with this program. It has proven entertaining so far for me.

3 2

Re: Matt Blaze arrested???
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> X-Originating-IP: [208.198.164.2] > From: "jim finder" <jim_finder(a)hotmail.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net > Cc: cryptography(a)c2.net, mab(a)research.att.com > Subject: Matt Blaze arrested??? The originating IP for this hotmail posting is lpwa.com, the Lucent Personalized Web Assistant. Ken Williams had posted a URL last week which described how to send anonymous mail using lpwa as a proxy to the hotmail service: > I came across a funny article about a "CIA, DEA, FBI, Lucent > Technologies, Replay.com, Seed-bank.com Grand Conspiracy" at > http://members.tripod.com/~spookbusters/sunnysnooping.htm This is easy to do and provides moderate levels of anonymity. You set lpwa.com as your proxy in the browser settings, and then set up your hotmail account and send the mail. Maybe Jim Finder was just testing the idea. Blaze has attracted one or two cranks who try to harrass him, and this may be another attempt to make some trouble for him.

1 0

Y2K and Atlas
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----Original Message----- From: [somebody] Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 1998 5:04 PM To: philosophy of objectivism Subject: For the ARF Ed Yourdon is name known to aging geeks as the developer of structured systems analysis & design. His text on the subject is still in use in C.S. courses around the country. He's also the author of a dozen or so books about programming, particularly mainframe programming. In early 1998 Yourdon and his daughter Jennifer co-authored "Time Bomb 2000: What the Year 2000 Computer Crisis Means to You." (As you might infer from the title, the Yourdons aren't exactly sanguine about the potential impact of the Y2K problem.) (Nor am I.) Yourdon maintains a web site featuring, among many other things, reading list both technical and non-technical about programming and Y2K. Introducing his non-technical list of Y2K books, he recommends Atlas Shrugged with the following comment: >As for Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged ... well, you probably read it in >college, but you've probably forgotten all about it. You probably don't >remember John Galt's famous line, "I will stop the engine of the world." >Well, read the book again now, with Y2K-colored glasses, and remember that >computer programmers are reading it, too. The question you need to ask >them is whether they intend to stay on the job if the lights go out on >January 1, 2000, and whether they feel sufficiently motivated to re-start >the engines of the world. If you don't think that's a question worth >asking, then you haven't read Atlas Shrugged. So I guess I'm not the only person to have made that connection... http://www.yourdon.com/books/coolbooks/coolby2kother.html

1 0

Re: "Export" controls
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I am unaware that microshit OS has hard crypto built-in. > I was pointing out a retail parallel, not a crypto parallel. You sure it's not Microshaft? More meanings. > The question is how to make money by selling hard crypto in the US. > A little experiment is often a good thing. I heard that the guys who made the DES cracker have had $$ requests for machines and/or chips. > To recap, there are no hard crypto drop-in hardware products > available to general public in the USA today. > In case you missed it, my original reply was an attempt to open discussion on some type of cooperative effort. Look at http://www.xilinx.com/products/xc4000XLA.html for prototype purposes. I wonder how many DES or IDEA engines could be put on a 500K gate array? It would fit about 35 instantiations of Twofish. That should be enough for a phone or a disk encryptor. It's not trivial but - Products can be done. On a shoestring. By the right people. Even non-geniuses. Who want to get them done. <-- the key item No sense pushing the button without critical mass. sigh... A friend's t-shirt many years ago: A penny for your thoughts, twenty bucks to act them out.

2 1

A person who counsels to fail to comply with the Act
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check out this bit of american slavery: "Failing to register or otherwise comply with the Military Selective Service Act is, upon conviction, punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, impris- onment for up to five years, or both. A person who knowingly counsels, aids or abets another to fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same penalties." www.sss.gov/teach3.pdf (for teachers, note) And this anti-FIJA bit: Except as may be authorized by a judge, no person or entity shall distribute or attempt to distribute any written materials tending to influence, interfere, or impede the lawful discharge of the duties of a trial juror, or communicate or attempt to communicate with any person summoned, drawn, or serving as a trial juror in the Superior Courts in Los Angeles for purposes of influencing, interfering, or impeding the lawful discharge of the duties of a trial juror in, or within 50 yards of any public entrance to, the facilities within which the Superior Courts conduct jury trials within this County. (Rule 5.2 added and effective 7/1/97.) http://www.co.la.ca.us/courts/superior-auc/CourtRules/Chapter5.htm#5.2

1 0

test1 #1
by ichudov＠Algebra.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test 1

1 0

Re: Matt Blaze arrested???
by jim finder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 11:36:51 -0500 >From: Matt Blaze <mab(a)research.att.com> > >I'm afraid you're confused. Whoever this report was about, it >wasn't me: > >* I'm not at Lucent Bell Labs. (I'm at AT&T Shannon Labs.) I'm not > aware of any other Blaze at either AT&T or Lucent, however. >* I'm not a mathematician. (I'm a computer scientist.) >* I've not been to ORD, or any other midwestern airport, > since August. (I do fly a lot, though). >* I never been arrested. (I did accently set off the antitheft > detector at a local bookstore once, but they let me go > when I showed them my reciept). > >-matt > Thanks for clarifying this! I'm very sorry to have started an unfounded rumor but I'm glad to know that you haven't been arrested. Thankfully, it looks like everyone assumed that I was just making this up, so I hope no serious damage was done and that the rumor didn't spread. That said, there <*was*> a radio report. It was on WBEZ 91.5 last night, and, as I said, I only heard the last part of the report. It was a news report about an arrest made at the O'Hare airport for something involving mathematics and foreign governments. I was almost 100% sure they said it was Blaze of Bell Labs who was arrested, but I guess it possible that I misheard. Perhaps they were quoting you or talking about you for some other reason. I remember that someone at bell labs (you???) had some problems with export authorities a few years ago, and maybe this is what they were talking about? Anyway, has anyone heard any more about this story, now that we know it wasn't Matt Blaze who was arrested? Humble Apologies, Jim PS I'm using a non-work account because I work for a large Chicagoland company that does some crypto business and I <*do not*> want to be seen as representing them on the cypherpunks list. Some of the work they do goes against cypherpunk (and my own) goals, and I'd rather not have people think I'm speaking for them. ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

SASMF, Part 1
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Space Aliens Stole My Freedom, Part 1 Know Your Gutless SheepleCustomer(TM) Let's just take a peek at how the new FDIC proposed reg would look if transposed into an FCC setting: ----- "Know Your Customer" Requirements AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The FCC is proposing to issue regulations requiring FCC-supervised communications carriers to develop and maintain "Know Your Customer" programs. As proposed, the regulations would require each carrier to develop a program designed to determine the identity of its customers; determine its customers' sources of communicated information; determine the normal and expected calls of its customers; monitor account activity for calls that are inconsistent with those normal and expected callss; and report any calls of its customers that are determined to be suspicious, in accordance with the FCC's existing suspicious activity reporting regulations. By requiring communication carriers to determine the identity of their customers, as well as to obtain knowledge regarding the legitimate activities of their customers, the proposed regulations will reduce the likelihood that communications carriers will become unwitting participants in illicit activities conducted or attempted by their customers. It also will level the playing field between carriers that already have adopted formal Know Your Customer programs and those that have not. --- Minimum steps to take to comply with the Know Your Customer rule. Identify the customer. If a communication carrier offers private leased communication services, it is important that the carrier understand a customer's personal and business background, source of information to be communicated, and intended use of the private leased communication services. --- The extent of the information regarding the customer that may be necessary to fulfill the carrier's Know Your Customer obligations should depend on a risk-based assessment of the customer and the calls that are expected to occur, and should be addressed within the communication carrier's Know Your Customer program. --- Determine the source of information. Paragraph (d)(2)(ii) requires that the Know Your Customer program provide a system for determining the source of a customer's information. The amount of information needed to do this can depend on the type of customer in question. Determine normal and expected calls. Paragraph (d)(2)(iii) requires that the Know Your Customer program provide a system for determining a customer's normal and expected calls involving the communication carrier. A carrier's understanding of a customer's normal and expected calls should be based on information obtained both when an account is opened and during a reasonable period of time thereafter. It also should be based on normal calls for similarly situated customers. Without this information, an institution is unable to identify suspicious calls. Monitor the calls. Paragraph (d)(2)(iv) requires that the Know Your Customer program provide a system for monitoring, on an ongoing basis, the calls conducted by customers to identify calls 'that are inconsistent with the normal and expected calls for particular customers or for customers in the same or similar categories or classes.' The proposed regulation does not require that every call of every customer be reviewed. Rather, it requires that a financial institution develop a monitoring system that is commensurate with the risks presented by the accounts maintained at that institution. Determine if call should be reported. Once a call is identified as inconsistent with normal and expected calls, paragraph (d)(2)(v) requires that a communication carrier determine if the call warrants the filing of a Suspicious Activity Report. This is consistent with an carrier's existing obligations under 12 CFR 353.3(a). --- A. Reasons for and objectives of the proposed rule. The proposed Know Your Customer rule is designed to deter and detect communication crimes, such as obscene phone calls, getting tax advice, and discussing the Constitution. B. Requirements of the proposed rule. The proposed rule would require communication carrier to identify their customers, determine their customers' normal and expected calls, determine their customers' sources of information communicated in calls, monitor calls to find those that are not normal and expected, and, for calls that are not normal and expected, identify which are suspicious. Know Your Customer monitoring would be similar to monitoring that communication carriers already do. For example, communication carriers monitor customer calls to ensure that calling volumes exceeding 10,000 per month are reported under the Communications Secrecy Act, to ensure that customers do not overuse their telephones, and to ensure that required calls are accurate and timely. ----- Editor's Note: Putting this in an FCC context makes it pretty clearly bizarre and unconstitutional, doesn't it? Where do these fuckers get off pulling this Nazi shit? Just to carry it all the way into Wonderland, we've drawn up this questionnaire, also in the telephone context: Sample Questionnaire 1. Is this a __residential or __business account? 2. Approximately how many calls do you expect per month? a. Incoming ____ b. Outgoing ____ 3. List the subject matter of expected calls (use extra sheets if necessary: ____ 4. List the telephone numbers from which you expect to receive calls (use extra sheets, etc.) ____ 5. List the telephone numbers to which you expect to place calls (use extra, etc.):____ 6. List the names of people with whom you expect to speak: 7. List the Social Security numbers of people with whom you expect to speak: ____ 8. List the political organizations to which you belong: 9. List the political organizations to which people with whom you expect to speak belong: ____ 10. Are any of the organizations in (8) or (9) on the Attorney General's list? Yes__ No__ 11. If the answer to (10) was Yes, do you have a current and valid waiver for that (those) organization(s)? Yes__ No__ 12. If the answer to (11) was No, proceed directly to federal prison. Do not pass urine; do not collect $200 from any ATM. 13. Do you regularly call your mother? Yes__ No__ 14. If the answer to (13) was Yes, list the topics you commonly talk about with your mother (use extra, etc.) 15. What are your sources of information for your telephone conversations?____ 16. List all facts known to you, about which you expect to speak in your telephone calls:____ 17. List all times at which you expect to receive or place calls:____ 18. Attach transcripts of all conversations you expect to have. In lieu of transcripts, recordings may be attached. 19. Staple this form to your head, jam a toilet plunger handle up your ass, waddle to the nearest telephone, dial "1" and say, "I'm ready. Pick me up." Wait at your front door. ----- FuckingFedUpMonger

1 0

MERRY CHRISTMAS! guys!
by Bernardo B. Terrado 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

sorry if you're angry with this ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "If a student is particular about his studies, especially while he is too young to know which are useful and which are not, we shall say he is no lover of learning or of wisdom; just as, if he were dainty about his food, we should say he was not hungry or fond of eating, but had a poor appetite. " ---- PLATO By the way, it's Bernie not Bernardo. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous wrote: >Check out this bit of american slavery: > >"Failing to register or otherwise comply with the >Military Selective Service Act is, upon conviction, >punishable by a fine of up to $250,000, impris- >onment for up to five years, or both. A person >who knowingly counsels, aids or abets another to >fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same >penalties." Even more interesting is the fact that Congress was going to do away with the Selective Service a few years ago but President Clinton (accused of draft dodging during the Vietnam War) opposed getting rid of it.

1 0

Fwd: Code Red privacy workshops
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Sat, 28 Nov 98 23:19:16 0 >From: simon davies <simon(a)privint.demon.co.uk> >Subject: Code Red privacy workshops > > > > >PLEASE DISTRIBUTE > >PRIVACY INTERNATIONAL ANNOUNCES >THE "CODE RED" PRIVACY WORKSHOPS > > >Friends and colleagues, > >In 1999, Privacy International - the international privacy >campaign organisation - will host a series of privacy workshops to >be held in Brighton throughout the year on the second weekend of >each month. > >The workshops will have four purposes : > >1. To brainstorm current privacy (and privacy related) issues; > >2. To plan future events and campaigns; > >3. To provide occasional training sessions in technical issues, media >skills, campaigning etc, and, > >4. To give us all an opportunity to network and to have huge >amounts of evening/night fun in sunny Brighton. > >We called the workshops "Code Red" because.....well.....because it >sounds cool. No other reason. > >We chose Brighton as the venue for the workshops because of the >mass of PI members and supporters there who can offer a billet (i.e. >free accommodation if you can stand sleeping with the cat/ dog/ >mainframe humm/ sound system/ travelling hippies etc etc.). > >The workshops are open to campaigners, IT experts, academics, journalists and >anyone involved in the pursuit of privacy protection. >Chatham House rules will apply to the workshops. > >The 1999 dates will be : > > January 9 & 10 > February 13 & 14 > March 13 & 14 > April 10 & 11 > May 8 & 9 > June 12 & 13 > July 10 & 11 > August 7 & 8 > September 11 & 12 > October 9 & 10 > November 13 & 14 > December 11 & 12 > > >The Standing Agenda will be : > >Saturday 13.00 - 14.00 Amateur buffet lunch and guest speaker > > 14.00 - 18.00 : Briefing and discussion of curent issues > > 18.00 - : pubbing, dining and clubbing in Brighton > >Sunday 11.00 - 15.00 : Follow-up from Saturday, campaign strategy, >ad-hoc training sessions, comprehensive briefing sessions, and forward >planning (can be extend if required). > >Within this agenda, the subject matter is flexible, and the sessions >are likely to cover a range of themes including internet privacy, >censorship, data protection law, workplace surveillance, >communications interception, police powers, national security and >visual surveillance. > >Anyone wanting to participate should call Simon Davies on 0958 466 >552. There will be no cost, though a contribution of a few quid for >food would be gratefully received if you can afford it. > >BLOCK OUT THE DATES IN YOUR YOUR DIARY NOW !! > >We're looking forward to seeing you. > >Best wishes > >Simon Davies >Director, >Privacy International > >email simon(a)privacy.org > >www.privacy.org/pi/ >

1 0

Fwd: FC: Emergency Powers and National Emergencies
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: declan(a)mail.well.com >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.0.2 >Date: Wed, 02 Dec 1998 23:56:10 -0500 >To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >Subject: FC: Emergency Powers and National Emergencies >Sender: owner-politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >Reply-To: declan(a)well.com >X-Loop: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu >X-URL: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > >"The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the >means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, call >reserve forces amounting to 2 1/2 million men to duty, institute martial >law, seize and control all menas of transportation, regulate all private >enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control >the lives of all Americans... > >"Most [of these laws] remain a a potential source of virtually unlimited >power for a President should he choose to activate them. It is possible >that some future President could exercise this vast authority in an attempt >to place the United States under authoritarian rule. > >"While the danger of a dictatorship arising through legal means may seem >remote to us today, recent history records Hitler seizing control through >the use of the emergency powers provisions contained in the laws of the >Weimar Republic." > > --Joint Statement, Sens. Frank Church (D-ID) and Charles McMathias (R-MD) > September 30, 1973 > > >I came across this and the Senate special committee's 1973 report on >Emergency Powers Statutes in Time Magazine's library. Powerful stuff. > >-Declan > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology >To subscribe: send a message to majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu with this text: >subscribe politech >More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >

1 0

Fun at US Customs
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Apparently, US Customs doesn't even need a warrant to detain you for days without the opportunity to talk to an attorney, x-ray you, pump your stomach, give you laxatives, chain you to a hospital bed, or insert their arms up to the elbow in one of your body openings. Are laws of other Western nations similar? While I can understand strip-searching travelers on occasion, the rest of this stuff seems a tad much, especially in the absense of anything resembling due process. Declan didn't write this, so I will post the whole thing. :) ----- WASHINGTON (AP) -- Returning to Chicago from Jamaica, Gwendolyn Richards was plucked from a line of air travelers by a Customs Service inspector and ordered into a bare, windowless room. Over the next five hours, she was strip-searched, handcuffed, X-rayed, and probed internally by a doctor. The armed Customs officers who led Richards in handcuffs through O'Hare International Airport and drove her to a hospital for examination suspected she might be smuggling drugs. They found nothing. ``I was humiliated -- I couldn't believe it was happening,'' said Richards, who is black and has joined a civil rights lawsuit against Customs. ``They had no reason to think I had drugs.'' Richards, 27, isn't alone. Officers last year ordered partial or full strip searches or X-rays for 2,447 airline passengers, and found drugs on 27 percent of them, according to figures compiled by the Customs Service. Customs officials say tough tactics are necessary to catch the growing number of smugglers who swallow cocaine-filled balloons, insert packages of heroin into their body cavities, even hide drugs in a hollow leg or under cover of a fake pregnancy. ``We still have a major drug problem in this country,'' Customs Commissioner Raymond Kelly said in an interview Wednesday. ``We have to do this.'' Richards and others who have sued Customs have alleged they were targeted because of their race. Sixty percent of those pulled aside last year for body searches or X-rays were black or Hispanic, Customs figures show. Thirty-three percent of Hispanics who were searched were found to have drugs compared with 31 percent of blacks and 26 percent of whites. Kelly said race isn't a factor. ``There are higher risk countries and higher risk flights,'' he said. ``Those flights may be more populated by a particular ethnic group.'' Last year, the Customs Service seized 858 pounds of cocaine and 803 pounds of heroin attached to or inside international air travelers' bodies, officials said. More than 70 percent of the heroin seized at airports was smuggled that way. Acknowledging that searches ``can get pretty traumatic,'' Kelly said Customs is reviewing its policies and experimenting with new technology that might reduce the number of body searches. The review comes after several lawsuits and complaints from travelers who say they suffered abusive treatment and hours of confinement. For instance: --A Florida mother says her baby was born prematurely because Customs officials forced her to take a prescription laxative when she was seven months pregnant. In a lawsuit filed last month, Janneral Denson, 25, said she was taken from the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport and shackled to a hospital bed for two days so inspectors could watch her bowel movements. She says her son, born 12 days later, suffered damage. --Two Jamaican-born U.S. citizens each filed a $500,000 claim in September over body cavity searches and X-rays in Tampa, Fla. One of the women learned afterwards she was pregnant and agonized that her fetus might have been harmed, according to their attorney, Warren Hope Dawson. The baby was born healthy. Customs policy requires a pregnancy test before a woman is X-rayed, but Dawson said the pregnant woman was not tested. --A 51-year-old widow returning from an around-the-world trip was held for 22 hours at a San Francisco hospital, x-rayed and given the same powerful laxative. Amanda Buritica of Port Chester, N.Y., won a $451,001 lawsuit last February. A Boston nurse, Bosede Adedeji, won $215,000 in a similar lawsuit in 1991. Customs officials note that fewer than 2 percent of the 68 million fliers who pass through Customs each year have their luggage opened. Far fewer -- about 49,000 people -- are personally searched, usually with a pat down. The 1,772 strip searches last year ranged from people told to remove their socks to passengers like Richards who were ordered to take off their underwear and bend over. Strip searches are performed by officers of the same gender. The Customs review found 19 passengers who were subjected to pelvic or rectal exams by doctors while inspectors watched. Drugs were found in 12 of those cases. Congress and courts have given Customs broad authority to search for drugs, weapons and other illegal imports. The Supreme Court ruled that Customs officers at airports and border crossings don't need the probable cause or warrants that police need to search possessions. Customs officers can perform a strip search based on ``reasonable suspicion'' that someone might be hiding something illegal. A Customs handbook obtained by The Associated Press advises officers that reasonable suspicion usually requires a combination of factors, including someone who: appears nervous, wears baggy clothing, gives vague or contradictory answers about travel plans, acts unusually polite or argumentative, wears sunglasses or acts sick. Race isn't cited. Customs officers can detain people for hours, even days, without allowing them a telephone call to a lawyer or relative or charging them with a crime. Inspectors say they keep detainees from making calls so that drug associates aren't tipped off. Generally, if someone is detained for eight hours or more, a federal prosecutor is notified. Richards is among more than 80 black females who filed a class-action lawsuit claiming they were singled out for strip searches at O'Hare because of race and gender. The plaintiffs include a 15-year-old girl, a mentally retarded woman, and a woman who uses a wheelchair. Many decided to sue after seeing news reports on Chicago's WMAQ-TV about strip searches of black women. The agency has hired an outside contractor to review how inspectors deal with the public, and is exploring ways to make the system less hostile. In a test at Miami and New York airports, some passengers selected for strip searches are given the option of having an X-ray instead. The service is also studying new imaging technology that shows things hidden under people's clothes. Customs officers seek passengers' written consent for an X-ray, but it isn't required. Some travelers say they felt coerced. Las Vegas police officer Rich Cashton said a Customs inspector who stopped him at Los Angeles International Airport last year grew angry when Cashton asked what would happen if he refused an X-ray. ``He said, 'If you don't sign this form, I'm going to take you down to the hospital and pump your stomach,'' Cashton recalled. ``He was using that threat as intimidation to make me sign a consent form, which is definitely illegal.'' Cashton, who identified himself as a police officer, was let go. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, I'm Special Agent Murfrock of the IRS and this is Special Agent Prenfrew. We'd like to speak with you about C. J. Parker, maybe known to you as "Toto" or "TruthMonger..." Sorry, I don't recognize any of those. Isn't Toto the dog? The dog? Yes, Dorothy's dog in... (stops when he notices that the agents are scribbling furiously in their notebooks) May we come in? No, I was just about to go to sleep. I'm not well. Sorry to hear that. We have an e-mail here that you sent to Toto, and another he sent back to you... May I see those? (takes the printouts) Sorry, doesn't ring a bell. Well, if you look at those headers, the ones circled in red, you will see that... You must be kidding! There are more people forging e-mail headers than live in St. Louis! Everybody knows that. Would you mind if we just come in for a moment? Yes, I would. I told you, I am going to sleep. Would you mind if we look at your computer? Why would you want to do that? Well if you didn't send or receive these messages, you have nothing to worry about. I don't see any reason to do that. We can get a warrant, very quickly, as a matter of fact. If you cooperate, things will go better for you. I love to cooperate. I want to cooperate. I am cooperating to the fullest extent I believe is required of me. Ask me something that makes sense and I'll answer it. Have you ever heard of a group called the Cypherpunks? It rings a bell. Are you a member? No. How do you explain the fact that we found your e-mail address on a Cypherpunks membership list in a computer we seized? I have no idea. I don't join organizations. Are you a member of the Majordomo organization? No. The only majordomo I've ever heard of is a mail list manager. Where have you seen this Majordomo? Oh, everywhere. I think it's worldwide in scope. (scribble scribble) It's some kind of utility program. Everybody uses it. (scribbling stops) What can you tell us about it? Nothing, really. If you want to get on a mail list you send a "subscribe" message to a majordomo. If you want to get off, I think you send an "unscrive" message. Have you ever done that? Maybe. I don't recall. Anyone can submit your e-mail address to lists, so you don't even have to subscribe to be on an e-mail list. And there's so much spam these days that I don't recognize half the stuff I get. Spam? (the agents look at each other) Junk e-mail. I delete most of my e-mail without even reading it. Sometimes my email program crashes and it all gets deleted before I can look at it. (scribble scribble) How many lists have you joined? I don't remember. I never paid any attention to those things, and since I banged my head three months ago, I haven't been remembering a lot of things. (scribble scribble) So, are you denying being a member of the Cypherpunks? I don't know what that means. Have you ever subscribed to the Cypherpunks e-mail list? I have no idea. You have no idea? You don't remember? I don't know what I've subscribed to, unsubscribed from, what I get, don't get. E-mail is a complete mess and I ignore most of it. I'm really not very good at those things. May we look? No. Are you going to make us get a warrant? Get what you like. My disk crashed last week and I threw it away. Lost everything. In fact I just formatted my new disk and the only data on it is manuscripts for the columns I write. Columns? I write for a magazine and a couple of newspapers. (oh shit) (scribble scribble) Oh yeah? Which ones? I don't think that's appropriate. Well, we'll be back. Here's my card in case you think of anything you'd like to tell us. Sure. One more thing. Have you ever been invited to join something called The Circle of Eunuchs, e-u-n-u-c-h-s? I don't recall ever hearing of anything like that. Do you know who Tim May is? Nope. Sounds like a real common name, though. How about Blanc? Is that French? Never mind. Thanks. We'll be seeing you. (I don't _think_ so) ----- AmnesiaMonger

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On marte, 01.12.1998, "Blanc" <blancw(a)cnw.com> wrote: > I received my visit from the friendly IRS guys tonight, asking > about CJ/Toto. Pre-schoolers'R'Us. You got a visit from the advance guys. > It seems that they had a copy of two emails...one of them the one > in which I chastized him for sending a threatening letter to Billg. Admissions, admissions. Would some duly licensed bar attorney on this list PUH-LEEZE tell these children how to behave in the presence of criminal inquisitors? > They wanted to know about my associations with Toto (I still think > of him by that name), of course, of which I had none except through > email. So _you_ say! They open doors; you walk through them; you can easily find yourself in Wonderland. Don't come crying to _me_! > In our conversation, There is no such thing as a "conversation" with them; there is only an "interrogation." Everything you say is interpreted as an admission, a denial, or an evasion. You are a perp. You are dogshit. > I discovered things that I didn't know about Toto's situation: You mean you heard more _allegations_? If you're not careful, your neighbours will be the next ones to be "discovering things we didn't know" about _you_. That's the way they turn people against targets, and anyone they interview can become another target in the blink of an eye. > that he had sent threatening letters to the Mounties, Alleged, and only to _you_ as far as you know... > and that he had threated to kill the judge trying Jim's case. Alleged, and only to _you_ as far as you know... > I'm afraid CJ really went over the edge here and backed himself up > in a corner. GodDAMN! I'm glad you're not a friend of mine! I don't know if I even want to _know_ whether you're wearing panties or not anymore. > I should have chastized him more severely and counseled him against > rash acts of unkindness (not that I hold myself responsible for what > he did, but he did pay attention to me). Geez! I wonder what you must gush up about your _enemies_! > Kind of amusingly, one of them asked if CJ had ever asked me to join > the Circle of Eunuchs! heh. Yeah, that's funny. It should also have set off all your alarm bells that you're dealing with clueless fuckwits who can't find their fly without a map and whose only interest in life is putting anybody they can in prison, on any excuse whatsoever. If they can weave together a Circle of Eunuchs or a Cult of the Kernel or a conspiracy of Fanatic Followers of the Seashell, they'll be content to do it. You could tell them that the leader of the militant arm of the Circle is the infamous but cryptic "General Error" and they'd write it down with a straight face. To you, it's a joke. To them, it's a statement with possible evidentiary value. And nothing's funny. > I explained that it was Toto's Art imitating Life, creating stories You don't explain _anything_ to them. You can only give them leads and evidence. Of course, if you *insist* on having such a fucking good memory and on gushing on about all sorts of things, well, don't be surprised if they conclude that you _do_ know a lot about this Toto stuff, after all, and maybe merit another, more probing interview. > We had a bit of discussion on a number of things, I'll _bet_ you did! Sounds like you made a nearly _perfect_ subject for interrogation. > including the subject of free speech and how close one can get to it > before being subject to arrest. Ooooooo! That sounds _delicious_! You can entertain attorneys with that one. You will be thrilled at the wondrous range of awful expressions they make. Some may even quietly throw up in a corner. > I asked them what that crucial point was when this would happen, > since there is no crime until action is actually taken. Shows how much _you_ know. And now you get your legal advice from the IRS CID? That's really bright. > They said this would be when... > I referenced as an example the web site... Nice of them. Did they indemnify should you rely on their advice and get busted or sued? Didn't think so. > One of the investigators also brought up the issue of... > I remarked that one must always be prepared for the unexpected... > they made some points about taking threats seriously... "Hyperseriously" is more like it. You're a regular motormouth, aren't you? Now they have you knowing a lot more about Toto-ish things than just the email showed, they have you red-flagged as "attempting to draw the agent into arguments about law or the Constitution," they have you flagged as being way too bright for an innocent person, and demonstrating an interest in discussing the technicalities of the law on threats to public officials, which interest, just coincidentally, happens to dovetail quite nicely with the essential subject matter of their investigation. I'd give pretty good odds you're going to get another visit. If you don't have a lawyer present on the next one, I'd say you're, uh, sorry, there's just no other word: _stupid_. > I asked if cypherpunks would actually be subpoenaed to appear at > CJ's trial. They said it depends on CJ: if he accepts a deal, he > would likely get a reduced sentence, but if he takes them to trial > then there could be quite a number of Cpunks called forth. Ooooooo! Lovely! FUD! Big time FUD! Divide and conquer FUD! CJ becomes the bad guy for not cutting a deal and instead inconveniencing all those busy Cpunks, all of them probably suddenly writing code instead of flaming each other in endless and pointless threads of non-crypto! > I suggested if that happens we could all go out to dinner > : ) and they thought this would be quite interesting. Of _course_ it would! More "conversation," leads, admissions, denials and evasions! More grist for the mill! More perps! Get them to pick up the tab -- they'll be able to put it on their expense reports! It's called an informal group interrogation. Geez, how can bright people be so fucking STUPID? > One of the investigators expressed a great interest in the cpunk > dicussions and concepts; Doh! It's his _job_ to be interested in a subject matter touching on an active investigation. > I described...I'm sure given a little time and several dinners we > could convert him to the Dark Side. <g> Geez! Don't you realize that they _are_ the Dark Side! Have you been living under a rock for the last few decades? "You know, Gunther, those Gestapo men who visited last night to ask about the Goldblums next door were very polite. One of them expressed great interest in concepts and discussions of Judaism, and Jewish family trees. I described something of what the religion is about and referred him to some libraries and gave him some titles to read. I'm sure, given a little time and several dinners, we could convert him to our side." Right. Maybe you understand now why I'm not on the Cpunks list? RabidFreedomMonger

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have this really, really bad memory problem. It gets worse under stress. I also have this metaphysical dilemma thing. I know the guy next door. I guess. Actually I don't know him. I've called him Joe, but it wouldn't be right for me to say to anyone official that his name is Joe, because I've never checked his ID, so I don't really know, and even if I had checked his ID, I still wouldn't _know_, would I? He's always been a nice fellow, and I wouldn't want to cause him undeserved harm by leaping to conclusions about him. Does he have a wife? I don't know. I may have seen a woman around his place, but I couldn't leap to the conclusion that she is his wife. I might assume so out of courtesy to them, but I wouldn't presume to tell someone official that he is Joe or that he has a wife, because I really don't know. Most of what I _think_ I know, and which serves quite well for inviting each other to our barbeques and for borrowing small tools, is stuff I don't actually _know_ and don't care about one way or another. And that affects my memory when people ask questions about him. Did I see those two young men snatch a purse from that lady over there? Yes. Can I describe them? Yes. Did I notice what they were wearing and in which direction they ran? Yes. Do I know anything about Joe? Nope. Does he have a wife? I have no idea. What does he do for a living? Gosh, I have no idea. The law requires you to give up information you have when asked by a law enforcement officer investigating a crime. The law does not and cannot require you to notice things or to have a good memory. If your memory gets worse as the things being investigated stray farther and farther from common law crimes and into the realm of "bureaucrime" and thought crime, well, that's just too fucking bad. I'd make a really bad juror, too. It's not a memory thing there, it's more of a comprehension thing. I just have trouble seeing guilt if the law itself is bogus. Not guilty. What? Are you crazy? They had him dead to rights laundering money! Sorry, I just can't believe the evidence. It just doesn't add up for me. Explain why not! Sorry, I can't. It just doesn't work for me. If more people had these problems, all the bureaucrimes and other victimless crimes would, sadly, be history overnight. The IRS would lose every single case that went to a jury, and within months the income tax would be repealed, a no-audit, no-go-to- jail sales tax would be in place, and most of the people working for the IRS would be looking for a new job. I would be very saddened by the rude reality of all that, but, hey, what the hell? Will these problems that afflict me spread? You'd better hope your sorry ass they do! If they don't, we're all in for a very rough ride, and not 50 years from now, but tomorrow and next year. We're already well down the slippery slope. Personally, though, I think we're in for a shitstorm. That's because people are basically unprepared for the degree of evil that has been refined and distilled in government. They're still way too willing to spout off about things they don't even know, to presume the worst, even of their friends and acquaintances, to play full rube right into the hands of truly evil people who have _their_ act down to a science. If large scale genocide has been going on all through the last several years in Bosnia while people on this list have been consumed in flame wars and pseudo-propellor-head duels on a scale of delicacy of the medieval mace, how much more easily can and does largely bloodless subjugation take place all around us? If people can allow Ruby Ridges and Wacos to take place without congressional offices being _filled_ every day with outraged citizenry and recall petitions being launched for every politician who even hesitates in taking a firm stand, how can we think that the gradual sapping of our liberty will evoke a response until things first get very, very bad. There is a peaceful solution available today. At one level you don't have to have a good memory in all things to be a law- abiding and responsible citizen-unit. Just say "No, I don't remember" about things that are none of your business. At another level, you don't have to put up with bureaucrimes when you sit on a Grand Jury or a trial jury. Just say "No." Don't argue; don't convince; just say "No" across the board to bureaucrimes. It takes 51% of the voters to win an election. It only takes 5% of the jurors to kill a bad law. Nothing else will work. Nothing else has ever worked. If this is not done now, we will all face terrible choices and tragedies within as few as ten years. AmnesiaMonger

1 0

Fun at US Customs
by HyperReal-Anon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Las Vegas police officer Rich Cashton said a Customs inspector who >stopped him at Los Angeles International Airport last year grew angry >when Cashton asked what would happen if he refused an X-ray. > >``He said, 'If you don't sign this form, I'm going to take you down to >the hospital and pump your stomach,'' Cashton recalled. ``He was using >that threat as intimidation to make me sign a consent form, which is >definitely illegal.'' > >Cashton, who identified himself as a police officer, was let go. "Sir, we'll have to ask you to come with us." "What is the problem, officer?" "We have reason to believe that you are bringing contraband into this country. Please remove your clothing and bend over." "Comrade, surely you must be mistaken! I am a loyal citizen!" "Remove your clothing and bend over or we'll do it for you, Libertarian scum." "Libertarian? You are mistaken, comrade! I am a loyal citizen! I am a card-carrying party member!" *shows card* "That's fine, Officer Cashton, if that is your real name, but how can we be sure that you are who you claim to be?" "My biometrics, of course, comrade!" *he's scanned* "Sorry for the mixup, Comrade Cashton. We're about to go find some pretty young 15 year old girls to strip search and do body cavity searches on, then temporarily plug their body cavities so that they do not use them in indecent ways or for smuggling contraband." "Comrade, whatever do you mean?" "Are you sure you're a fellow jack booted thug? Do you have your manual? You must have your manual at all times! Fine. You may borrow mine, comrade. Read the section titled 'Rape of the Citizenry'." "Ah, I understand now, comrade. I was not aware that such actions were permitted. Let's go." ***Fifteen minutes later*** Young woman 1: (crying) "What have we done, officers? I am loyal!" Young woman 2: (sobs incoherently) Customs Officer: "You are suspected of smuggling contraband into this country! You are traitors!" Young woman 1: "My sister and I most certaintly are NOT traitors!" Customs Officer: "Then prove it. Remove your clothing and submit to a body cavity search. Officer Cashton? Take your pick." *searches are performed* Customs Officer: "Now, ladies, we have concerns that you may attempt to smuggle contraband out after the body cavity search is performed." Young woman 2: (sobs incoherently) Young woman 1: (crying louder) "But there is no contraband here! How can we smuggle it out?" Officer Cashton: (removing a bag of cocaine from his pocket and throwing it at the women) "Yes there is." Customs Officer: "Ah, I see you are a quick study, Comrade Cashton! Now ladies, just to make sure you don't smuggle anything out in your body cavities, we've invited the ground crew here to fill them and lead you naked in chains to your flight after they tire of your company." Officer Cashton and Customs Officer together: (giving a Nazi-style salute) "Heil Klinton! Heil Reno! Heil Freeh!" ...... StatistMonger

1 0

Re: "Export" controls
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>You sure it's not Microshaft? More meanings. Macroshit ? But I digress. >A little experiment is often a good thing. I heard that the guys who >made the DES cracker have had $$ requests for machines and/or chips. Their architecture has real $$ value because it cracks 99% of "encrypted" traffic. >In case you missed it, my original reply was an attempt to open >discussion on some type of cooperative effort. Offering the real stuff for sale in US requires some investment. Whether it is hardware (128-bit crypto engine on a PCI card ?) or software plug-in for the aforementioned OS that makes all traffic go through IPsec with 128-bit non-DES block cipher, some amount of money must be put to a risk. We are not talking here about free stuff. We are talking about products that can be deployed by non-programmers, businesses etc., that will be supported professionally (the perceived quality of professional support vs. free stuff is immaterial here.) >purposes. I wonder how many DES or IDEA engines could be put on a 500K >gate array? It would fit about 35 instantiations of Twofish. That should >be enough for a phone or a disk encryptor. Hardware is overkill for the single voice line. PGPfone works fine there. >Who want to get them done. <-- the key item If there is a demand, it will be done. Let's run a small poll: How much would you pay for transparent hardware/software solution that encrypts all traffic between peer users (assuming all rational crypto requirements are met, like available source code etc.) ? >No sense pushing the button without critical mass. The main problem with hard crypto is that it is so equalizing. Any pauper can cheaply encrypt and make it hard for any government to break. This is not the case with guns, where more resources almost linearly buy more power. - One of the posters mentioned that PGP is retailed in CompUSA. My mistake, I did not check them (but I did check 3 other big chains). - On the wild side, suppose that all crypto restrictions are terminated. Some would say that now "they" can break all available stuff. In any case the value of crypto products in the eyes of buyers would fall. If it is legal it is no good. Most of the research would lose the best people. Cypherpunks would cease to exist. A very dangerous proposition.

1 0

What's Down ....!!!!
by COM PLAIN 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In this letter i wanna know some tricks how to take revange, of a operator by hacking his code ,, can you help me ??? in alamak chat www.alamak.com ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

blanc's MIB
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:54 PM 12/1/98 -0800, Blanc wrote: >I received my visit from the friendly IRS guys tonight, asking about CJ/Toto. How did you authenticate them, or why was it unnecessary? >Kind of amusingly, one of them asked if CJ had ever asked me to join the Circle >of Eunuchs! heh. Should have said, "I 'know nothing' about such things" One of the investigators >expressed a great interest in the cpunk dicussions and concepts; I described >something of what the list is about and the flow of subscribers through it, and >referred him to the archives, saying '94-'95 were some good years. I'm sure >given a little time and several dinners we could convert him to the Dark Side. Or he could have gotten more intelligence from you.

1 0

Re: Fwd: FC: Gun groups take aim at new FBI database
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From frissell(a)panix.com: Some of the following statements do not (in my recollection) apply to those in California... > >The following statements are true: > >It is legal to own a car without a driver's license or vehicle registration. In CA only "junk" cars can be unregistered. An unregistered car on private property can be cited under a long list of circumstances. > >It is legal to drive an unregistered car without a driver's license (in >some circumstances). It is never "legal" to drive an unregistered vehicle (or even tow it without a trailer) on CA roads. The judge may let you off if you have "a real good reason". But the cops can and in most cases will cite you! > >No permission is required to purchase a car and felons, the mentally ill, >children, aliens and those guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses >can buy cars and most of the above can drive cars on public streets and roads. I do believe that there are some legal restrictions for children purchasing cars... > >You are not required to report the purchase of a car to anyone. Since every car in CA MUST be registered, every change of ownership must be reported. If you do not you are subject to a fine. They give you ten days to report the transfer of ownership. > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US with a >license from any jurisdiction on earth. Only for a limited period of time in CA... > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US that is >registered in other states or nations. Not if the owner is a resident of CA, and again only for a limited period of time. > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US that is >owned by and registered to any person or legal entity. > >Legal entities can own and register cars and permit anyone they like to >drive them. > But they assume all the liability and even possible criminal consequences for letting unlicensed persons drive the car. >Note that if we regulated guns like driving, the above would mean that you >could buy and use a gun on your own property without licensing, >registration or reporting. NOT in CA... > >DCF >

1 0

Hi
by jt9＠mail.dsd.it 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you know what the number one factor is, that will determine whether your business is a success or not? ADVERTISING! Effective conventional advertising is quite expensive. So what do you do? Direct email is one of, if not thee most effective method of advertising in the 90's. You can get your ad out to hundreds of thousands, even millions, for only a fraction of the cost of traditional advertising. The wave of future advertising is here, don't miss it. We will send your advert for you. We have gone through painstaking methods to insure that we have the the most quality lists on the Internet. We send your ad for your, all you have to do is create it. 250,000 addresses - $199 350,000 addresses - $250 500,000 addresses - $350 1 million addresses - $700 For advertising to 3 million or more ask about our special rates. For more information or to place an ad call IMC Marketing at (909) 627-3557

1 0

Re: Fwd: FC: Gun groups take aim at new FBI database (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 03 Dec 1998 11:01:25 +0100 > From: "Albert P. Franco, II" <apf2(a)apf2.com> > Subject: Re: Fwd: FC: Gun groups take aim at new FBI database > Some of the following statements do not (in my recollection) apply to those > in California... > > > >The following statements are true: > > > >It is legal to own a car without a driver's license or vehicle registration. > > In CA only "junk" cars can be unregistered. An unregistered car on private > property can be cited under a long list of circumstances. Only if they can see it. Otherwise they'd need to execute a warrant to even find it. Park it in a garage or a niche in the backyard, problem solved. > >No permission is required to purchase a car and felons, the mentally ill, > >children, aliens and those guilty of misdemeanor domestic violence offenses > >can buy cars and most of the above can drive cars on public streets and > roads. > > I do believe that there are some legal restrictions for children purchasing > cars... There are legal restrictions on children buying anything. Technicaly the sale isn't final without a guardians signature as co-signatory of the bill of sale. > >You are not required to report the purchase of a car to anyone. > > Since every car in CA MUST be registered, every change of ownership must be > reported. If you do not you are subject to a fine. They give you ten days > to report the transfer of ownership. In most states the time limit and further instructions are on the vehicle license. If you buy it via a loan then other terms may apply. > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US with a > >license from any jurisdiction on earth. > > Only for a limited period of time in CA... Unless it's an international license that is recognized by the US this isn't true. Simply having a drivers license from England, for example, won't allow you to drive a vehicle in any of the states anymore than your CA license will let you drive legaly there. > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US that is > >registered in other states or nations. > > Not if the owner is a resident of CA, and again only for a limited period > of time. Actualy as long as the owner isn't a resident (not the driver) and doesn't stay in whatever state over some period set by the legislature then it is permissible. In a lot of states it is between 30-90 days. I'd bet the limit in CA is the residence time limit. I rather doubt that anyone staying in CA 11 days automaticaly becomes a resident with a right to vote in state elections and such. > >It is legal to drive a car on public streets and roads in the US that is > >owned by and registered to any person or legal entity. > > > >Legal entities can own and register cars and permit anyone they like to > >drive them. > > > > But they assume all the liability and even possible criminal consequences > for letting unlicensed persons drive the car. It depends on the insurance limitations. My Bronco II is technicly uninsured, and therefore illegal to drive, unless I am the driver. In some cases even if the driver is licensed the owner still assumes liability. At least here in Texas irrespective of who is driving the vehicle, the owner is ultimately responsible for the vehicle. So if you loan it to cousin Bippy and he has a wreck and runs away guess who gets to go to court on leaving-the-scene charges. Now if you roll on Bippy the situation may change. > >Note that if we regulated guns like driving, the above would mean that you > >could buy and use a gun on your own property without licensing, > >registration or reporting. > > NOT in CA... Move to Texas. You can still drive your unregistred, uninspected vehicle on your own property at your own speed and have wrecks at your convenience (within the constraints of your deed restrictions of course). Way too many bubba's still live in Texas for this sort of stuff to go over at all. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: open-pgp / s/mime interoperability
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: >Peter Gutmann writes: >>>open-pgp public keys aren't based on X.509 keys, so I would've thought >>>s/mime implementation would barf on them. >> >>Actually S/MIME *could* support the use of PGP keys, but there's a field >>(the SubjectKeyIdentifier) missing from the CMS SignerInfo which prevents >>this. >Surely this in itself should be a compelling argument for inclusion of the >SubjectKeyIdentifier? I'm trying to get this adopted for CMS, the underlying data format for S/MIME. The silly thing about this is that alternative key identifiers (like PGP keys) were going to be included in RSADSI's PKCS7v2, but aren't included in the IETF version of the same thing. The result is that you have a private company going out of its way to accomodate open standards, and the IETF going out of its way to lock them out. Weird. >If it allows conversion of PGP keys into S/MIME X.509 keys. You don't need this conversion, with key identifiers you can use both SPKI and PGP keys directly within S/MIME. There's no need to convert them into an X.509-like format first. Peter.

1 0

No Subject
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Thu, 3 Dec 1998 12:24:01 +0800 (CST) >From: Bernardo B. Terrado <bbt(a)mudspring.uplb.edu.ph> >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, coderpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: MERRY CHRISTMAS! guys! Fuck Christmas, Bernardo "Go Fuck Yourself" Terrado. You and those bastards in the black helicopters can suck my Christmas cock. >sorry if you're angry with this Why the fuck would I be angry? Go fuck yourself, Bernardo. >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >"If a student is particular about his studies, especially while he is too >young to know which are useful and which are not, we shall say he is no >lover of learning or of wisdom; just as, if he were dainty about his food, >we should say he was not hungry or fond of eating, but had a poor >appetite. " ---- PLATO Wasn't Plato that cocksucker who didn't pay his taxes to THE MAN? >By the way, it's Bernie not Bernardo. >`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Oh FUCK! My apologies, Bernardo. If I had known you preferred "Bernie", then I would have told you to go fuck your mother instead of yourself. Warmest fucking regards to you and yer moms, -- PureFuck -- finger HillarysAsshole(a)whitehouse.gov for a good time

1 0

Fwd: FC: Emergency Powers and National Emergencies
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan points out some scary stuff here but no president (even Clinton) would be stupid enough to do something so outrageous. They would have to know that it would spark a long running a especially bloody revolution. Why risk it when they can just keep approaching totalitarianism incrementally with such activities as the FuckingDICks "Know Your Customer" activities. It's much quieter and infinitely less likely to result in a revolution. APF >> >>"The President has the power to seize property, organize and control the >>means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, call >>reserve forces amounting to 2 1/2 million men to duty, institute martial >>law, seize and control all menas of transportation, regulate all private >>enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control >>the lives of all Americans... >> >>"Most [of these laws] remain a a potential source of virtually unlimited >>power for a President should he choose to activate them. It is possible >>that some future President could exercise this vast authority in an attempt >>to place the United States under authoritarian rule. >> >>"While the danger of a dictatorship arising through legal means may seem >>remote to us today, recent history records Hitler seizing control through >>the use of the emergency powers provisions contained in the laws of the >>Weimar Republic." >> >> --Joint Statement, Sens. Frank Church (D-ID) and Charles McMathias (R-MD) >> September 30, 1973 >> >> >>I came across this and the Senate special committee's 1973 report on >>Emergency Powers Statutes in Time Magazine's library. Powerful stuff. >> >>-Declan >> >>

1 0

Re: I Got Mine
by Albert P. Franco, II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now there's a really intelligent response to the MIB! I think Blanc would have done a better self-service to have responded that way. MAKE THEM GET A WARRANT! It's your ONLY legal defense against a fishing expedition! It's our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to require a warrant before letting them in! We are NOT criminals just because we do not allow the MIBs to make ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL searches of our properties! If they can't convince a judge AND obtain a specifically worded search warrant then they are obviously fishing! Tell to go find a real deep lake... I also give the writer an A+ for the Clintonian and Reagonesque touches! APF > >Hello, I'm Special Agent Murfrock of the IRS and this is Special >Agent Prenfrew. We'd like to speak with you about C. J. Parker, >maybe known to you as "Toto" or "TruthMonger..." > >Sorry, I don't recognize any of those. Isn't Toto the dog? > >The dog? > >Yes, Dorothy's dog in... (stops when he notices that the agents are >scribbling furiously in their notebooks) > >May we come in? > >No, I was just about to go to sleep. I'm not well. > >Sorry to hear that. We have an e-mail here that you sent to Toto, >and another he sent back to you... > >May I see those? (takes the printouts) > >Sorry, doesn't ring a bell. > >Well, if you look at those headers, the ones circled in red, you >will see that... > >You must be kidding! There are more people forging e-mail headers >than live in St. Louis! Everybody knows that. > >Would you mind if we just come in for a moment? > >Yes, I would. I told you, I am going to sleep. > >Would you mind if we look at your computer? > >Why would you want to do that? > >Well if you didn't send or receive these messages, you have >nothing to worry about. > >I don't see any reason to do that. > >We can get a warrant, very quickly, as a matter of fact. If you >cooperate, things will go better for you. > >I love to cooperate. I want to cooperate. I am cooperating to the >fullest extent I believe is required of me. Ask me something that >makes sense and I'll answer it. We have learned sooo much from our wonderful President Clinton, haven't we?! > >Have you ever heard of a group called the Cypherpunks? > >It rings a bell. > >Are you a member? > >No. > >How do you explain the fact that we found your e-mail address on >a Cypherpunks membership list in a computer we seized? > >I have no idea. I don't join organizations. > >Are you a member of the Majordomo organization? > >No. The only majordomo I've ever heard of is a mail list manager. > >Where have you seen this Majordomo? > >Oh, everywhere. I think it's worldwide in scope. > >(scribble scribble) > >It's some kind of utility program. Everybody uses it. > >(scribbling stops) >What can you tell us about it? > >Nothing, really. If you want to get on a mail list you send a >"subscribe" message to a majordomo. If you want to get off, I >think you send an "unscrive" message. > >Have you ever done that? > >Maybe. I don't recall. Anyone can submit your e-mail address >to lists, so you don't even have to subscribe to be on an >e-mail list. And there's so much spam these days that I don't >recognize half the stuff I get. > >Spam? (the agents look at each other) > >Junk e-mail. I delete most of my e-mail without even reading it. >Sometimes my email program crashes and it all gets deleted before >I can look at it. > >(scribble scribble) >How many lists have you joined? > >I don't remember. I never paid any attention to those things, >and since I banged my head three months ago, I haven't been >remembering a lot of things. > >(scribble scribble) >So, are you denying being a member of the Cypherpunks? > >I don't know what that means. > >Have you ever subscribed to the Cypherpunks e-mail list? > >I have no idea. > >You have no idea? You don't remember? > >I don't know what I've subscribed to, unsubscribed from, >what I get, don't get. E-mail is a complete mess and I >ignore most of it. I'm really not very good at those >things. > >May we look? > >No. > >Are you going to make us get a warrant? > >Get what you like. My disk crashed last week and I threw it away. >Lost everything. In fact I just formatted my new disk and the >only data on it is manuscripts for the columns I write. > >Columns? > >I write for a magazine and a couple of newspapers. > >(oh shit) >(scribble scribble) >Oh yeah? Which ones? > >I don't think that's appropriate. > >Well, we'll be back. Here's my card in case you think of anything >you'd like to tell us. > >Sure. > >One more thing. Have you ever been invited to join something >called The Circle of Eunuchs, e-u-n-u-c-h-s? > >I don't recall ever hearing of anything like that. > >Do you know who Tim May is? > >Nope. Sounds like a real common name, though. > >How about Blanc? > >Is that French? > >Never mind. Thanks. We'll be seeing you. > >(I don't _think_ so) > >----- > >AmnesiaMonger >

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is anyone aware of any critical evaluations performed on the security of the Network Associates (a.k.a. McAfee) PGP for Personal Privacy? Traditionally, PGP source code has always been available for evaluation by the Net community, but this isn't the case with the newer commercial versions. Additionally, and this is a bit paranoid, but PGP in the past has come with digitally signed files to authenticate the integrity of the files. Once again, commercial versions offer no such guarantee that the software hasn't been tampered with between the factory and the store shelves. Comments?

2 1