December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Key
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 5 May 1996, Lance Cottrell wrote: > Why did you decide to create this additional key. What role are you > reserving the other one for? It's more convenient for me to sign on a multi-user system. As I don't want to compromise my main key, a lower security document signing key would seem in order. Feel free to copy this to the list. --- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

FIPS for KMI
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's worth looking closely at the Cryptography Key Recovery System (CKRS) documents published recently as part of the FIPS KMI program. A meeting is scheduled next month. See the listing of the August Meeting reports at: http://csrc.nist.gov/tacdfipsfkmi/ They show how far the key recovery program has advanced.

1 0

hey
by FARTNOC69＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

well i am a carder well i cant card because i have used all of my drop sites.. i can sell laps 4 top dollar so get back 2 me if u need some one 2 sell stuff!l8erz

2 1

Re: [History] USPS tried to monopolize email? (c. 1981)
by Erik E. Fair 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The U.S. Postal Service's first attempt at E-mail was called "E-COM" (ca. 1984), and it amounted to an electronic submission system for mail that would then be printed, stuffed into envelopes, and delivered in the usual way - but done so at the regional centers. It was geared toward 3rd class mass mailings, and was a dismal failure. While it was cheaper than standard 3rd class mailings, the mailings were output on Printronix dot-matrix line printers, and they looked terrible. Who knows? If they'd invested in laser printers instead... Some of you who were on the UUCP/USENET at the time may remember a small company on the UUCP network in Rockville, MD called "netword", which would accept E-mail for E-COM and deliver it for free; the deal was that the input batches to E-COM had to be of a certain size, and the "netword" folks rounded out their batches with the stuff from the net. Eventually, E-COM was sold (I seem to recall the Netword people bidding on it), and it disappeared shortly thereafter. I know about this story because Netword was a customer of another company which has also since disappeared: Dual Systems of Berkeley, California, makers of a Motorola 68000-based, Version 7 (and later System V) UNIX system on the S-100 (IEEE-696) bus. I worked for Dual from March '83 to June '85 - my first job out of college. Erik Fair fair(a)clock.org

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by loki＠infonex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One should also note that the surplus beyond subsistence was much smaller at that time. A more useful figure might be the percent tax on surplus. If the serf was taxed at 10%, but only had a 5% surplus above survival needs, then he was in a difficult position. Unfortunately I see no chance of an agreement on how to define surplus. -Lance At 7:20 AM 5/6/96, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: >At 11:16 PM 5/5/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> SANDY SANDFORT >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >>C'punks, >> >>On Sun, 5 May 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> >>> didn't the feudal vassels only pay 33% ? >> >>Actually, no. When I used to edit a magazine, I commissioned an >>article about how much "tax" slaves, serfs, etc. paid. That is, >>how much of what they produced, did they get to keep; how much >>went to their masters. The surprising, cross-cultural answer my >>researcher/writer found was that they got to keep everthing they >>produced except 5-10%. That's a lot better, percentage-wise, >>than for modern "tax slaves." > > >In the early feudal period, ordinary knights did not live well. >They were only moderately better off than peasants, and yet to support one >knight, you needed a startlingly large number of peasants, a fact >that kings were continually unhappy about and continually trying >to fix. > >While it is difficult to assess the tax rate, because taxes were >in kind, it was clearly very low by modern standards. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > | >We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ >and our property, because of the kind | >of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald >derives from this right, not from the | >arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Rep. Loretta Sanchez Hits Crypto Controls
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Sanchez statement is from House Report 105-108, Part 3, published September 12 by the National Security Committee, which describes the Weldon-Dellums amendment to SAFE. See the full report at: http://jya.com/hr105-108-pt3.htm The report includes a cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Officefor implementing SAFE. However, as far as I can tell, the estimate does not include the cost of a GAK system, and covers only the cost of export controls. Thus, it appears to be vastly misleading. SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ Many of us when we think of encryption imagine the ``ENIGMA'' code breaking machines of World War Two or the American Indian ``code talkers'' that helped us anticipate and defeat Nazi and Imperial Japanese attacks. Those methods were mechanical or human-based, and often depended on simple arithmetical slight of hand to trick the enemy. Today, encryption is complex mathematical algorithms that have become an entirely new branch of mathematics involving intense academic study. Until recently encryption was limited to governments and large companies through U.S. export limitations and by the limitations of existing hardware and software technologies. All that began to change as the desktop computer became more prevalent and the computing power available to the average user jumped by leaps and bounds every year. When discussing the power of the PC observers of the information technology industry often predict that the computing power of microprocessors would double roughly every 18 months. Because of this the rapidly developing speed and growth of computers, the age of the ``unbreakable code'' has long since passed. Manufacturers of encryption technology are engaged in a rapidly accelerating race to develop the newest and strongest code that can withstand attacks from the increasingly powerful computers of the day. And it isn't just big companies and governments that have the technology to break codes. Last January, a graduate student broke a 40-bit code in just three- and-a-half hours, the toughest code form American companies at the time were allowed to export. Today, American companies are the world leaders in encryption technology, but other companies and nations are catching up. Strong encryption products and knowledge about the science of cryptography is not limited to the United States. A savvy computer user anywhere in the world can with just a few clicks of the mouse find U.S. export-embargoed encryption. Many freelancing code hackers maintain off-shore Internet meeting sites to discuss the newest holes in encryption products. The proposed export controls which the Administration argues helps to keep strong encryption out of the hands of foreign adversaries will have little or no effect. Strong encryption is available abroad and US companies are being put at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. With this bleak and seemingly hopeless picture in mind how do we protect ourselves from the threat of rogue nations and other adversaries cloaking their communications from American National Security efforts? The only viable solution is through supporting a robust and aggressively competitive cryptography industry in the United States. We must ensure that the United States continues to maintain the deepest pool of cryptographic experts in the world. American export limitations will only serve to create a brain drain of these precious resources as leading scientists leave our shores for more lucrative and accommodating surroundings. All of us care about our national security and no one wants to make it any easier for criminals and terrorists to commit criminal acts. But we must also recognize encryption technologies as an increasingly sharp double-edged sword. It can also aid law enforcement and protect national security by limiting the threat of industrial espionage and foreign spying, but only when Americans are able to produce the sharpest swords and the strongest encryption. I would also like to state for the record that for the reasons stated above, I do not support the Dellums-Weldon Amendment to H.R. 695, and would have voted against it. Loretta Sanchez. ----------

3 2

Arguments _against_ privacy, anyone?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 6-MAY-1996 01:21:22.00 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Sun, 5 May 96 02:28 PDT From: privacy(a)vortex.com (PRIVACY Forum) Subject: PRIVACY Forum Digest V05 #10 PRIVACY Forum Digest Sunday, 5 May 1996 Volume 05 : Issue 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Call for bad arguments against privacy In my online newsletter, The Network Observer, I periodically summarize and rebut bad arguments against a broad right to privacy. At the end of this message I've included a partial list of the arguments I have discussed so far. I would like to gather another batch of arguments, probably for the July 1996 issue of TNO, and I am hoping that you can help me. Please send me any bad arguments against privacy rights that you have encountered, even if you can't quite figure out what's wrong with them, and even if you don't have a specific example ready to hand. Arguments concerning specific issues such as government records, medical privacy, and video surveillance are particularly welcome. Once I finish this next set of arguments and rebuttals, I'll gather the whole set into a "handbook" that can be distributed freely on the Internet. Thanks very much. Phil Agre Encl: The Network Observer can be found on the Web at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/tno.html The privacy articles can be found indexed a little ways down the page. Here are most of the arguments that I have discussed in past issues: * "We've lost so much of our privacy anyway." * "Privacy is an obsolete Victorian hang-up." * "Ideas about privacy are culturally specific and it is thus impossible to define privacy in the law without bias." * "We have strong security on our data." * "National identity cards protect privacy by improving authentication and data security." * "Informational privacy can be protected by converting it into a property right." * "We have to balance privacy against industry concerns." * "Privacy paranoids want to turn back the technological clock." * "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent trade-offs between functionality and privacy." * "Our lives will inevitably become visible to others, so the real issue is mutual visibility, achieving a balance of power by enabling us to watch the people who are watching us." * "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous that it provides no useful guidance for action." * "People *want* these systems, as indicated by the percentage of them who sign up for them once they become available." * "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of a democratic society." * "Privacy regulation is just one more category of government interference in the market, which after all is much better at weighing individuals' relative preferences for privacy and everything else than bureaucratic rules could ever be." * "There's no privacy in public." * "We favor limited access." * "Privacy in these systems has not emerged as a national issue." [ Submissions that would be interesting to the general readership of the PRIVACY Forum would also be very welcome here. -- MODERATOR ] ------------------------------ End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 05.10 ************************

1 0

Re: Nando.net on expatriate tax issue
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 29-APR-1996 02:16:40.69 >On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > >Billionaires' tax loophole could complicate passage of health reform >What precisely does this reporter think is being "tightened" in his or her >version of the House bill? (Note that in current law there is no $500,000 >floor). In fact the reporter hasn't bothered to describe what the >provision really does. (Imposes a expatriation is taxable event >analysis). Talk about a snow job. I won't say it is or is not advertant, >but it's bloody annoying. Fascinating. One wonders how the House managed to convince the CBO that it would gain money... it did. > >The House version would be extremely difficult to enforce and would allow > >patient expatriates to avoid the tax by holding their assets for 10 years > >before selling, they say. In the interim, they could raise cash by > >borrowing against the assets. >Which is the law today. What is with this guy? Get your facts straight >media. I have relatives who went to journalism school during the Depression. I begin to see why they complain about modern media, and why Heinlein said that Time _never_ got the story right on anything he saw in person. Modern journalism schools are going more and more to communication theory courses as opposed to how to write and how to get the facts straight. -Allen

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca" 29-APR-1996 02:04:15.24 To: IN%"EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu" "E. ALLEN SMITH" CC: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: RE: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture? Received: from tesla.cc.uottawa.ca by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01I43C5TODPC8WWL2O(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:12 EDT Received: by tesla.cc.uottawa.ca (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA25041; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:17:36 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:17:36 -0400 (EDT) From: s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca Subject: RE: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture? In-reply-to: <01I43B16HT2U8Y53CU(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu> Sender: s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu> Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Reply-to: s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca Message-id: <Pine.3.89.9604282225.B28833-0100000(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca> X-Envelope-to: EALLENSMITH Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Mime-Version: 1.0 On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> Currently, yes... but the divide between rich and poor is growing. >> (So long as this divide is determined by merit, and the poor still have >> enough to survive, I'd call this a good trend. So would various other >> people on this list, perhaps without my caveats.) In other words, the >> middle class is going >I agree with your caveat. It's where the anarchists get me skeptical. The poor still having enough to survive is the most significant reason I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. There are a few others, but that's the main one. >Someone sent me some US income tax figures. It would seem that the vast >majority of personal taxes are paid by the rich and high-end upper-middle. >So I'll eat my words and agree with you, talking about the rich makes >quite a bit of sense. I sort of do wonder how many of those "corporations" >are small businesses and individuals working as companies. Time for me to >go find a national stats book. Despite its agreeing with my point (thank you), I'm not sure if I'd consider income taxes to be enough of the story to go by them alone. Federal level, yes; state & local, probably not. I am willing to bet that property taxes are mainly paid by the relatively wealthy, given how much of personal capital tends to get tied up in a home. Sales taxes are more evenly distributed. However, the economic changes I discuss should result in this becoming true, even if it might not be completely true currently. >Of course only talking about the rich makes things so much easier. Yes. In a capitalist society based on merit, the rich are the ones who matter in the long run. -Allen

1 0

info
by Alexis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can anyone help me out or tutor me in Hacking, phreaking, cracking, and cryptography, I know that you need to know all for to become a good hacker, I also heard that you guys don't mind teaching others. THanks Alexis.

1 0

Over 100 Adult Internet Channels Free!!
by 22345494＠mailexcite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.schoolgirlz.com This is the newest and most comprehensive Adult Site Offer Available on the net.... 110 WILD XXX RATED LIVE CHANNELS - 2 ALL BLONDE CHANNELS 2 MULTIPLE GIRL CHANNELS - 2 CHANNELS OF REDHEADS AND BRUNNETTES 1 ALL BLACK CHANNEL - 1 INTERNATIONAL GIRLS FROM AROUND THE W0RLD 2 TEEN CHANNELS (18 AND 19 YR OLD BABES) - 4 CHANNELS REAL SEX SHOWS-MALE/FEMALE-LESBIAN) http://www.schoolgirlz.com

1 0

STEL b5 released
by cert-it＠dsi.unimi.it 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- STEL beta5 has been released. 1. WHAT IS STEL? STEL is a free telnet surrogate which provides strong mutual authentication, encryption, secure file transfer, automatic s/Key password generation, centralization and management of s/Key passwords and more. 2. WHERE IS STEL AVAILABLE? STEL is available as: ftp://idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it/cert-it/stel.tar.gz Please note that ftp.dsi.unimi.it is not supporting security stuff anymore. All the security archive has been moved to idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it. 3. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF STEL? The latest version of STEL is beta 5. It has been (quite) extensively tested on the following systems: hpux sunos4 solaris24 solaris25 irix linux aix It has been reported to work (but no testing) on: ultrix freebsd bsdi Bug reports, comments and suggestions should be sent to: stel-authors(a)idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it - -- ******************************************************** ******** Computer Emergency Response Team ITALY ******** ******************************************************** E-mail: cert-it(a)idea.dsi.unimi.it Mailing list: unix-security-request(a)idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it Ftp: ftp://idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it WWW: http://idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3 mQBNAi1eowgAAAECAOTEMFRZHfBb+ndAmdk3vl20EpynEWwB3ZJo/ocZUXgSjBKS op11p19WyyTV9eW2Sosu9GoC4i7VLDiuFRfmKZUABRG0HkNFUlQtSVQgPGNlcnQt aXRAZHNpLnVuaW1pLml0PokAVQIFEC1epVbakBlHrAS41wEBnskB/iXnREAs044y ngOa8uJtYwFaDKc15GUKx9VV2klikcoWKPgaD6WjFs82HmdY86IQL2bFTi8FTKS2 2auGllxW2zaJAJUCBRAtXqV3kbMTtv2Q670BAccAA/sFW+OVkfr8FnClSAlD7fQc /PL0y8qDF4hYx3tIw1utM5zRGlti+KIOpuUIkQpIX4j8f9lIe/cihL5rlusQFsX4 d7cEJWW8GUM3+/mv89jM0ds6IX9KjfJAQPvPFr5rlRgmHdVm9K4ugCTkOzGsv1E4 o5+ZCN5dJW0+EbmjoghwoA== =WPYC - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQBVAwUBMY4wESw4rhUX5imVAQFs1gIAuYqr5IAWRoFQzm71sWdBJCOKTCq/G4ti eucdKJ+5FlmyeQUavWseepozKF019KXElfoHkDVdjl8bnyhFIm7u1w== =nQd0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: alias servers (al la alias.c2.org)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"des(a)juno.com" 27-APR-1996 04:36:45.71 >On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Black Unicorn ><unicorn(a)schloss.li> writes: >>Is anyone besides c2.org running an alias server? >There's a few of them - nym.gondolin.org, nym.alias.net, and >alias.alias.net are the others that leap to mind just now. >Of course, having just previewed the Juno "free-email" >service, I might count it also. How much information do they actually want, and how much do they check? I seem to recall that they wanted some info for giving to the advertisers and for targeting the advertising. -Allen

1 0

Anonymous info
by admin＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You have requested information about your account at anon.penet.fi. Your code name is: <FAILED(a)anon.penet.fi> Your real e-mail address is: <cypherpunks(a)toad.com: not found> Your nickname is: <> Your password is: <> Regards, admin(a)anon.penet.fi

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:49 PM 5/6/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"frissell(a)panix.com" "Duncan Frissell" 5-MAY-1996 08:56:32.33 > >>Even though the population of those who regularly violate federal tax laws >>is smaller (20 million?) the records show that even for this population the >>odds of being convicted are approximately the odds of being murdered. > > However, are you controlling for level of income? The IRS is a lot >more worried about TCMay committing tax fraud than they are about me committing >tax fraud; my income taxes are a lot closer to 0 than his. > -Allen > Actually, as a percentage of income, tax evasion is probably more prevalent among the poor than the rich. Because they are less exposed. Studies of spending show that the poorest 20% of Americans spend twice their reported income. DCF

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"frissell(a)panix.com" "Duncan Frissell" 5-MAY-1996 08:56:32.33 >Even though the population of those who regularly violate federal tax laws >is smaller (20 million?) the records show that even for this population the >odds of being convicted are approximately the odds of being nurdered. However, are you controlling for level of income? The IRS is a lot more worried about TCMay committing tax fraud than they are about me committing tax fraud; my income taxes are a lot closer to 0 than his. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"frissell(a)panix.com" "Duncan Frissell" 6-MAY-1996 16:04:24.96 >Actually, as a percentage of income, tax evasion is probably more prevalent >among the poor than the rich. Because they are less exposed. Studies of >spending show that the poorest 20% of Americans spend twice their reported >income. Quite. The poor can get away with this for multiple reasons, including being on more of a cash-based economy. But the largest reason is probably that the IRS doesn't care nearly as much about each individual at the low end of the income ladder as they do about any evasion involving a lot of money. Now, the low end tax evasion probably costs the government a lot more than the rich does... but it's also a lot harder to pursue. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"attila(a)primenet.com" "attila" 5-MAY-1996 21:36:54.93 > how many _truly_ "populist" presidents have we elected? Given the numbers of times that a democracy has done more harm than good to civil liberties (Prohibition, the election of Islamic Fundamentalists in Algeria, etcetera), we don't _want_ a "populist"/demagogue president. We want someone in charge (to whatever degree that someone has to be in charge) who will respect civil liberties. The masses aren't going to elect such a person; they prefer protection to liberty and always will. > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." > --Ben Franklin (Historical Review of PA -1759) > > and, the bottom line is: > > "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen > from falling into error; > it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government > from falling into error." > --Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge Quite. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jk(a)stallion.ee" "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCri_Kaljundi?=" 5-MAY-1996 11:47:15.29 >Here in Estonia there was a proposal made in the parliament to remove >taxation on corporate income (right now there is a proportional corporate >income tax of 26%), which should bring more foreign investments into >Estonia and also make Estonian economy develop faster. Estonia I think is >one of few countries where there is a possibility of accepting this kind >of law. Of course European countries, USA and different international >financial organisations are very against this kind of law. This law would >apply both to companies and to self-employed private persons (farmers for >example). Let me guess the reason for the objection... it would make siting an offshore-type company in Estonia to avoid taxes possible. -Allen

1 0

Re: Kid Gloves or Megaphones
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jamesd(a)echeque.com" 5-MAY-1996 14:18:14.34 >>From: Lucky Green >>>It is true that the issuer is unable to discover that double blinding is >>>being used. The real problem with the protocol is that it requires >>>payor/payee collusion, which may make it difficult to execute. >At 07:58 PM 5/4/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> Can the payee discover that the payor isn't colluding before the bank >>can figure out who the payee is? >If the payor is not colluding, then the payee will immediately discover >he has not been paid, because the checksums are wrong, and his software >says "bad payment" >If the payor is colluding, then no matter what he reveals to the bank, >the bank cannot discover the payee. Note that with payee anonymity, >the payee does not have to promptly check in his money, so the bank >has no hope of narrowing the search by coincidence in time. >But if the payee is colluding, then the payor can be detected by >coincidence in time. The other messages on this appear to be saying about the same thing, with the exception of this last part. _Except_ for that, the payor/payee collusion part doesn't appear to be a problem on the anonymnity side of things. I would guess that Lucky Green's comment was then that there was an additional complexity for payor and payee. -Allen

1 0

Re: WWW proxies?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 0:30 5/5/96, Lou Poppler wrote: >On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:13:06 -0400 (EDT), >Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> wrote: >} >} Has anyone developed such a beast yet? > >I know of two anonymizing web proxies. See: >http://hplyot.obspm.fr:6661/ and: >http://anonymizer.cs.cmu.edu:8080/ > >I think both sites offer source for what they are doing. >I've used the Observatory de Paris site a few times as http_proxy. >Last I checked, the Carnegie-Mellon site only serves requests from >*.cmu.edu clients. Of course these sites are in an ideal position to log their user's every move. With so many users making all their http requests through a single site, the commercial value of the information that could be gained by logging traffic at the site is tremendous. Only when a network of anonymizing sites is connected through something like PipeNet and the users are either PipeNet nodes themselves, or at least randomly use various PipeNet nodes for their http connections, does the security of the user increase. With only one hop, IMHO, the potential risk outweighs the potential benefit. I'd advise against using such single-hop http anonymizers. YMMV. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

4 3

Police report body found during Colby search
by reagle＠rpcp.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A body was found Monday in the area where former CIA Director William Colby went missing after going canoeing on April 27, Maryland Department of Natural Resources police said. There was no immediate confirmation that the body was that of Colby, a spokeswoman said. ``Yes, a body was found,'' she said. The search had been under way in the area of Colby's weekend home at Cobb Neck in southern Maryland on a tributary of the Potomac River. Colby, who served as director of the CIA in the 1970s, was reported missing after his swamped canoe was found and he had not returned to his home. A CNN producer reported that a male body was found washed up on the shore of the Wicomico River about 20 yards from where the canoe was found. While there was no immediate identification of the body, CNN said ``officials have confirmed it was a male body and they say everything fits -- it looks like Colby.'' His disappearance had touched off an air and water search that included divers and specially trained dogs but the probe turned up no sign of a body in the cold, murky waters.

1 0

Security Solutions at USENIX SECURITY Symposium
by cynthia＠usenix.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

6th UNIX Security Symposium Focusing on Applications of Cryptography July 22-25, 1996 Fairmont Hotel, San Jose, California Sponsored by the USENIX Association, the UNIX and Advanced Computing Systems Professional and Technical Association Co-sponsored by UniForum In cooperation with: The Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) and IFIP WG 11.4 The Symposium is offering day-long tutorials, refereed papers, panel presentations, invited talks, a vendor display, and Birds-of-a-Feather sessions. Practical solutions, especially cryptographic approaches, to UNIX security will be described, dissected, and expanded. Ron Rivest of MIT delivers the Keynote Address to kick off the intensive Technical Sessions. New research on public key issues, electronic commerce, safe working areas, and secure communication will be examined in 21 peer-reviewed technical presentations. UniForum is sponsoring panel discussions on Security and Privacy; Electronic Commerce, Cryptography Infrastructure, and Cryptography and the Law. There will also be sessions on the latest version of PGP, Internet Firewalls, and the C2Net Privacy model. Tutorial topics include: Implementing Cryptography; World Wide Web and Internet Security; A Comparison of UNIX Security Tools; and Security for Software Developers. Three new features have been added this year. An informal Vendor Display will allow hands-on demonstration of security products. (Vendors may call Cynthia Deno at 408 335 9445 or email to display(a)usenix.org.) USENIX is sponsoring a secure Internet connection in the Terminal Room. And, USENIX members will be able to sign up for the PGP Key Signing Service. For the complete program and registration materials, visit our Web site: http://www.usenix.org; send email to: info(a)usenix.org (your message should contain the line "send security conference"); or contact the USENIX Conference office at 714 588 8649. /-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- | Cynthia Deno | | | Tel: 408 335 9445 | USENIX | | Fax: 408 335 5327 | The UNIX and Advanced Computing Systems | | cynthia(a)USENIX.org | Technical and Professional Association | | Check out USENIX on the Net..........http://www.USENIX.org | /-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

1 0

Internet telephony report
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While they _probably_ aren't going to start trying to charge for Internet phone service, the FCC still thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet - with the egalitarian excuse of equal access as among the reasons. Hmph... bureaucracy. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 6-MAY-1996 03:21:47.24 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 From: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj(a)tdrs.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list cyber-rights(a)cpsr.org" <errors(a)snyside.sunnyside.com> Subject: cr> Regulating the Internet It is highly recommended that those who are concerned about the coming communications regulatory regime read the FCC's recent NPRMs on "universal service" and "interconnection." --caj @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ANALYSIS: FREE NET TELEPHONY + by Craig A. Johnson American Reporter Correspondent Washington 4/29/96 net-regulation 1023/$10.23 THE REGULATORS MEET THE INTERNET by Craig A. Johnson American Reporter Correspondent WASHINGTON -- Fears of Rambo-like regulation have spawned a sort of spring fever in the online world, with presumptive alarms and bulletins ricocheting all over the Net. Will the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) choke the Internet's wide-open pathways with regulatory underbrush? Will the petition filed by the Americas' Carriers Telecommunications Association (ACTA) on March 4 be granted, stopping Internet telephony or mandating access charges? (AR, No. 245 ) Or, even more catastrophically, will the Net somehow be swept under the FCC regime for telecommunications carriers? The answers, according to sources both inside and outside of the FCC, for the time being, are a qualified no. On April 19, the FCC gave its tentative response on the Net telephony problem, partially assuaging worries that new regulations will require access charges and tariffing for long distance voice over the Internet. Although the soft no from the FCC was reassuring, the wall protecting Internet voice as an "information service" has scores of cracks and may still crumble under the blows of a regulatory hammer. The issue was addressed in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on "interconnection," or more formally, "implementation of the local competition provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996." The NPRM is as interesting for what it does not say as for what it does. Generally, it poses a lot of questions, on which parties will file comments, and on the basis of which the FCC will finalize rules in August. The agency sees the proceeding and the consequent rules as establishing "the 'new regulatory paradigm' that is essential to achieving Congress' policy goals." The visible fractures in the old regulatory regime stood out prominently in the interconnection notice. Two aspects of the proceeding, in particular, directly relate to Internet access and pricing regimes. First, the FCC made it clear that current access charges and interconnection regulations are "enforceable until they are superseded." The FCC said, in regulatory-ese, that it wanted comments on "any aspect of this Notice that may affect existing 'equal access and nondiscriminatory interconnection restrictions and obligations (including receipt of compensation).'" Translated, this means that Net telephone providers and users can breathe a little more easily for the time being. But, the call for comments on the existing "restrictions and guidelines" should not be taken for granted. It is precisely these regulations -- which exempt "enhanced service" providers, like Internet and online service providers from paying access charges for their usage of the facilities and network components of local exchange carriers (LECs) -- which are on the table in this proceeding and related ones. A second aspect of the interconnection proceeding relates directly to definitions. The Commission asks for comment "on which carriers are included under" the definition of "telecommunications carriers" offered in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Critically, the agency asks: "How does the provision of an information service [as conventionally defined in the law and prior regulations], in addition to an unrelated telecommunications service, affect the status of a carrier as a 'telecommunications carrier?'" This is a call for commenters to address the issue of whether "information service providers," such as ISPs, who also provide "telecommunications services," should be treated as "telecommunications carriers" and therefore be subject to all, some, or none of the requirements of common carriers, including the payment of access charges and the filing of tariffs. In practical terms the FCC is asking the online community to persuade them that ISPs who permit Internet audio streaming applications, such as long distance voice, should not be considered under the same rules applying to "telecommunications providers." The FCC emphasizes that the interconnection rulemaking "is one of a number of interrelated proceedings," and explains that the answer to how, in which ways, and to what extent the Internet will be regulated will be a product of "the interrelationship between this proceeding, our recently initiated proceeding to implement the comprehensive universal service provisions of the 1996 Act and our upcoming proceeding to reform our Part 69 access charge rules." This should be seen as a warning flag that issues concerning access charges for the Internet have yet to be even taken up by the Commission, and will be one of the outcomes of several complex proceedings, with public comments invited from all consumer and business interests. The FCC NPRM and order establishing the joint federal-state universal service board, issued on March 8, for example, emphasizes the provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which stipulates that "[a]ccess to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the country." The FCC says that "commenters may wish to discuss Internet access availability, data transmission capability, ... enhanced services, and broadband services." In both this and the interconnection notices, the agency emphasizes its statutory authority to regulate the Internet. The news so far is relatively positive. The FCC claims it doesn't want to prematurely slap regulations on the Net which may stunt its remarkable growth and vitality. But the handwriting is on the wall -- in several different hands and scrawled over cracks. Arguments for Internet volume-based or per-packet pricing will be surely surface in comments in the FCC proceedings. The old argument for the "modem tax," which says that data bits should be priced differently than voice bits, will likely rear its scarred head. Internet access is on the charts and in the dockets at the Commission. It should have the same pride of place for all Internet activists and user group communities. The FCC is asking the Internet and computer user and business communities to wake up to an emergent regulatory regime in which the old comfortable dualities such as "information services" and "telecommunications services" -- which in the past have insulated the Internet from regulation -- may not be easily parsed. In short, the agency is begging for help in drafting the cyber-roadmaps for the future. (Note: Both the universal service NPRM and order and the interconnection NPRM can be accessed via the FCC's Web page -- http://www.fcc.gov. Many of the comments for the universal service proceedings are also now available at the site.) -30- (Craig Johnson writes on cyber rights issues for WIRED.) The American Reporter "The Internet Daily Newspaper" Copyright 1995 Joe Shea, The American Reporter All Rights Reserved The American Reporter is published daily at 1812 Ivar Ave., No. 5, Hollywood, CA 90028 Tel. (213)467-0616, by members of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Internet discussion list. It has no affiliation with the SPJ. Articles may be submitted by email to joeshea(a)netcom.com. Subscriptions: Reader: $10.00 per month ($100 per year) and $.01 per word to republish stories, or Professional: $125.00 per week for the re-use of all American Reporter stories. We are reporter-owned. URL: http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html Archives: http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/archives/ For more info on AR: http://oz.net/~susanh/arbook.html @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Visit The Cyber-Rights Library, accessible via FTP or WWW at: ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic, pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

Re: PICS & CyberAngels
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"vznuri(a)netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 4-MAY-1996 11:59:26.15 >this seems to suggest a misunderstanding of PICS either by you or >the "CyberAngels". PICS does not require any particular action by page owners >and is entirely based on that principle (there is a pretty good >argument it would be unconstitutional, impractical, idiotic, etc. if >it didn't). it defines a standard by >which ratings servers and queries are constructed and formatted. >anyone can rate any information. if the CyberAngels want to rate >all kinds of pages in cyberspace and set up their own rating service, >more power to them. the ratings do not restrict those who do not >choose the restrictions. The instructions in question, at http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/#look, are for their "volunteers" to report - including to both the page's ISP and to government - any page with sexual content that doesn't have a PICS such that it can be censored. In other words, they want to try to kick off systems - including potentially via legal action such as nonsense like "corrupting a minor" or whatever - any pages that don't set themselves up to be censored. That would include by government such as China, as well as by fundamentalist parents. Given their approval of Detweiler, you're making it more and more likely that you're him.... -Allen

3 2

Re: PICS required by laws
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"sjb(a)universe.digex.net" "Scott Brickner" 6-MAY-1996 14:23:50.08 >The problem is that it requires the cooperation of both of your ISPs. >You'll never receive packets to route from either of them unless you >have some sort of contract in place. In the scenario I outlined, the >"common carrier" status of the ISPs is contingent on their following >the censorship protocol, so their contract will require that you, too, >follow it. How difficult would it be to set up a router protocol to automatically select any from a series of other routers that announced itself willing (for a certain amount of ecash, perhaps)? I had thought that this was pretty close to the case in any event, for small networks anyway - and connections between small networks can interconnect into one large network. >Even in the face of a "digital silk road", this isn't likely to >change. The cost of operating a router is proportional to the number >of connections it has. The vast majority of traffic doesn't have >stringent enough delay requirements that it'll be willing to pay the >additional cost of going through a very highly connected router. >Therefore the hierarchical star configuration is near-optimal for >normal traffic (and pretty much all of the stuff that they claim they >want to censor). Directly proportional? I'd think there would have to be somewhat of a fixed cost involved. The question is whether the fixed cost (including the cost of a router to handle the ever-increasing bandwidth) is dropping faster than the cost of the number of connections. And your "normal traffic" doesn't seem to be including Internet Phone, which I can see being a major source of bandwidth in the future. -Allen

1 0

PICS: cyberratings, not censorship
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

some more information on PICS for the interested. I am a strong advocate of this system because even though it involves ratings, I see it as expressly and vehemently anti-censorship. this will be difficult to understand for some people who equate ratings with censorship, and it will require some major education to help people see why this is not the case with PICS (platform independent content selection). why is PICS *not* censorship? because of its key design goals: 1) people are free to choose what ratings they use. whoever sets up the system decides. i.e. parents might pick a particular rating agency for their family. people might even use a combination of ratings. i.e. weigh the Christian Zealots 50%, and the People for the Improvement of Cyberspace 50%, etc 2) ratings are not merely for blacking out pages. they can be for finding "neat" pages (Point Communications 5%, etc), or "child friendly" or whatever 3) ratings can be created by anyone, including gov't agencies, individuals, foreign governments, religious fanatics, etc., and moreover they can be in any form whatsoever, they are merely seen as information-- the market will decide which ones are useful and which ones are worthless, and whether to create standards in various specific categories. regarding the CyberAngels, I think it would be an excellent project to have them while away their lifetimes going through the web and applying their official "cyberangel rating" to every page they encounter. it would be a valuable public service, and they'd probably get a real kick out of it (hmmm, perhaps "control-freak-ecstasy"?). it gives them a chance to put their brains and hands where their mouths are, so to speak. next time you hear someone rant about pornography in cyberspace, or censorship, or whatever, (whether it is Gore's wife or some nobody on an obscure mailing list), tell them to set up their own PICS rating service and shut up. if you hear someone whine that no one is listening to their rating service or using their ratings, tell them that it's an excellent existence proof that no one truly cares what they think, and for them to jam it down anyone's throat (via legislation or whatever) only proves how manipulative, desperate, and out-of-touch-with-reality they are. truly, I hope that some day the universal and accepted response to seeing something you don't like on the internet will be to start or join a rating service, and NOT to try to pass a bill in congress that attempts to regulate cyberspace (@#$%^&*). will there ever be a day in the future in which, e.g., the Iranian governments of the world decide to start a Moslem Cyberspace Blacklisting Service instead of the less-efficient and less-effective method of Lucrative Blasphemer Assassination Grants? help support this proposal and perhaps it will happen. <g> ------- Forwarded Message Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 10:54:56 -0400 To: pics-info@... From: Paul Resnick <presnick(a)research.att.com> Subject: vac-wg Announcing PICS 1.1! Version 1.1 of the PICS technical specifications are now available from the PICS web page (http://w3.org/PICS) The direct URLs for the two documents are: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/services.html http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/labels.html We plan to submit them as informational RFCs in the near future. These documents are now frozen. If significant new features are specified in the future, there will be a higher version number. Three cheers! - ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Resnick AT&T Research Public Policy Research Room 2C-430B 908-582-5370 (voice) 600 Mountain Avenue 908-582-4113 (fax) P.O. Box 636 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636

1 0

Re: misunderstandings of PICS
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"vznuri(a)netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 6-MAY-1996 15:47:46.22 >but you still don't understand what I stated. the above does not make >any sense relative to the PICS system. it would be like saying, "we >are going to report anyone who doesn't have a SMTP that bans dirty >email". SMTP does not ban dirty email by definition. PICS does not >censor material by definition. please read the PICS proposal (sorry the >URL is not handy, could someone post it?) See below; I had read this _before_ posting on the CyberAngels and PICS. >PICS *doesn't*involve*the*page*designer*. this is an absolutely >key component of its design. it exists indepedent of page creators. >if page creators are suddenly being pressured to format their >pages in some way, then PICS has failed in some of its key design >goals. there are some *optional* ways that page designers can invoke >PICS principles as I understand, but they make no sense to me. (it >would be equivalent to someone rating their own material, something >I think is going to be far from the main use of ratings in the future) From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 16-APR-1996 20:19:13.88 >From http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/iacwc.htm >... PICS specifies three ways to distribute labels. The first is to embed >labels in HTML documents. This method will be helpful for those who wish to >label content they have created. > >The second method is for a client to ask an http server to send labels along >with the documents it requests. The server would most likely offer the >publishers' labels, but a server could also redistribute labels from third >parties that it cooperates with. [Client sends URL of label service to browser >which responds with that service's label. bf] > >The third way to distribute labels is through a label bureau that dispenses >only labels. A bureau could distribute labels created by one or more labeling >services. A client asks the bureau for certain services' labels of specific >resources. This is most likely to be used for third-party labels. In other words, the CyberAngels want to eliminate any pages that contain material they think minors shouldn't see that aren't self-rated with a PICS self-rating (the first of the three types) intended to block minors from seeing it. Yes, this is an abuse of the market oriented variety of PICS; they obviously don't know and/or don't care. If you want to convince them otherwise, start cc:ing your messages (and forwarding mine, on this I give you permission) on PICS and the CyberAngels to angels(a)wavenet.com. Incidentally, their pressure (especially the legal variety - acting as informants) could also include against an ISP that doesn't do the second for material the CyberAngels don't like. -Allen

2 1

Edited Edupage, 5 May 1996
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu" 6-MAY-1996 14:32:36.01 >EU TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT THE INTERNET >European Union culture and telecommunications ministers met last week to >discuss ways of controlling access to the Internet to prevent criminal >activity and protect children. "Many member states perceive the need now >for some discipline, some kind of regulatory framework or code of ethics," >says the Italian telecommunications minister. Some European governments, >such as Germany and Great Britain, have already adopted Internet-related >laws and others are considering it. (Wall Street Journal 3 May 96 B5B) We've heard a lot on the German one. What's the Great Britain one look like? >CANADIAN SATELLITES TARGETED >The race into space with direct broadcast satellite TV has created a >regulatory black hole that the U.S. government is struggling to fill. A >plan by Telesat Canada to finance its $1.6-billion satellite program by >leasing capacity to American broadcasters has prompted the Federal >Communications Commission to hold special hearings in Washington to >investigate whether it can regulate the use of Canadian satellites. >(Toronto Financial Post 4 May 96 p1) Of course they're going to try to control it. -Allen >*************************************************************** >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Smokey Robinson (if your name is Smokey Robinson; otherwise, substitute >your own name). ... To cancel, send a message to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu >with the message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you have subscription problems, >send mail to educom(a)educom.unc.edu.)

1 0

Re: A MODEST PROPOSAL (fwd)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com" "Bill Stewart" 5-MAY-1996 03:53:29.33 >I think that's user-settable, but there is no ideal approach. I certainly hope it's user-settable, and settable by each mailing list. >The big advantage is that replies go to the original sender by default >rather than to the list (which reduces the amount of personal mail going >to the list, winning both on noise-reduction and embarassment-reduction); That's what I suspected the reason was. Sort of like having mail instead of post as a default in USENET. >the disadvantage is that bouncemail goes to the original sender, rather >than the list or the list-manager (bouncemail to the sender is annoying, >but minor; bouncemail to the list is extremely annoying, as well as >potentially causing mail loops, which are an extreme lossage. Bouncemail >to the list-manager is ideal (not that the list-manager usually reads it), >but it's hard to get without reducing replies directly to originators, >as well as increasing replies accidentally going to the list-manager. I've been looking into procmail as a mail filtering mechanism for a list. It appears possible to handle at least some of the bouncemail via sending it to the list-manager (looking for things like priority: list/bulk/junk, for instance). Any further suggestions? Incidentally, I've been having problems locating the list-manager guides for majordomo; yes, I've tried Alta Vista. All I seem to be able to locate are A. the guides for users - not much use; and B. the FAQ. Sameer? -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:16 PM 5/5/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > >C'punks, > >On Sun, 5 May 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote: > >> didn't the feudal vassels only pay 33% ? > >Actually, no. When I used to edit a magazine, I commissioned an >article about how much "tax" slaves, serfs, etc. paid. That is, >how much of what they produced, did they get to keep; how much >went to their masters. The surprising, cross-cultural answer my >researcher/writer found was that they got to keep everthing they >produced except 5-10%. That's a lot better, percentage-wise, >than for modern "tax slaves." In the early feudal period, ordinary knights did not live well. They were only moderately better off than peasants, and yet to support one knight, you needed a startlingly large number of peasants, a fact that kings were continually unhappy about and continually trying to fix. While it is difficult to assess the tax rate, because taxes were in kind, it was clearly very low by modern standards. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

More on spectrum allocation
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm not sure how much our emphasis on individuals will go along with Phil Agre's (and CPSR's, of which he's a prominent member) emphasis on communities. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 30-APR-1996 01:47:55.85 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> [The Apple proposal to the FCC is an important initiative for community networking, and may set a precedent for much more dramatic restructuring of telecommunications infrastructure in the future.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 16:24:44 -0400 From: Heather Boyles <heather(a)farnet.org> To: Multiple recipients of list <cni-announce(a)cni.org> Subject: FARNET's Washington Update FARNET's Washington Update --- April 26, 1996 IN THIS ISSUE: o 1996 Appropriations stalemate finally ends while FY97 appropriations round heats up o FCC proposes free spectrum for community networking ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 1996 APPROPRIATIONS STALEMATE FINALLY ENDS WHILE FY97 APPROPRIATIONS ROUND HEATS UP After months of negotiations and two partial government shutdowns, the President and the Republican Congress finally came to agreement this week on an omnibus spending bill for the remaining five months of FY96. The bill includes appropriations for the NSF and Commerce among several other agencies. At the same time, authorization and appropriations bills are being worked through committees in the House for FY97 which begins on Oct. 1. The final FY96 budget for NSF came to $3.22B --- $40M above what the House and Senate had previously agreed upon this year. However, this week also saw the House Science Committee authorize NSF spending for FY97 at only $3.25B, a $75M cut from NSF's $3.325 request, which would give NSF less than a 1% raise over FY96. NSF has generally faired well amidst Republican (specifically House Science Committee Chair Robert Walker (PA)) efforts to cut science spending for all but what they define as "basic science." Democrats protested that the omnibus science authorization bill passed out of the committee this week was done too hastily, bypassing subcommittees for a one-day full committee session. Ranking Science Committee member George Brown (D-CA) complained that, among other things, "The Republican bill would eliminate the Social Science directorate....[and make] arbitrary personnel cuts at the National Science Foundation." The Commerce Department's TIIAP (Information Infrastructure Grants) program scraped by with an (anticipated) $21.5M for FY96. FCC PROPOSES FREE SPECTRUM FOR COMMUNITY NETWORKING Apple's NII Band petition which was filed almost a year ago at the FCC will finally see some action there. The FCC today released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to make 350 megahertz of spectrum available for use by unlicensed equipment termed "NII/SUPERNet" devices. The Commission voted 4-0 to release the proposal. The proposal comes after Apple Computer petitioned the FCC last year to create a "NII Band" that would permit high-speed data communications available to anyone without licensing or air-time charges. The FCC's NPRM would make spectrum from 5.25-5.35 GHz and 5.725-5.875 GHz available to devices that would fall under Part 15 of FCC rules, mandating only minimum technical standards and a basic "listen-before-talk" protocol standard. The FCC would also place power and out-of-band emissions limits on the devices, thus allowing only short-range (probably indoor or within campus) networking. The Apple petition last year advocated allowing users to use the devices for long-range (community-based with particularly emphasis on rural areas) communications. A rival group called the WINForum (made up of a number of telecommunications companies) balked at the idea of long-range use of the spectrum (which might cut into their businesses). Apple's long-range proposal may not be dead yet though. Commissioner Ness, in a separate statement on the NPRM, said she was "intrigued by the Apple long-haul proposal, which contemplates low-cost broadband links from homes to schools and libraries," but pointed to a number of questions that would need to be resolved before the Commission could proceed with such a proposal. The FCC clearly sees this proposal as an effort to help fulfill the President's promise to connect every school in the country to the "information superhighway." The NII/SUPERNet proposal is aimed at helping schools and other institutions do that without having to go to the expense of wiring entire buildings. Furthermore, the proposal may help take the wind out of the sails of those who have recently been pressuring the FCC to include inside wiring of schools in the universal service mechanism for schools and libraries - the Snowe-Rockefeller-Kerry provisions from the new telecom law. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Written from FARNET's Washington office, "FARNET's Washington Update" is a service to FARNET members and other interested subscribers. We gratefully acknowledge EDUCOM's NTTF and the Coalition for Networked Information for additional support. If you would like more information about the Update or would like to offer comments or suggestions, please contact Heather Boyles at heather(a)farnet.org. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Heather Boyles Director, Policy and Special Projects phone: (202) 331-5342 FARNET, Inc. fax: (202) 872-4318 1112 16th Street, NW Suite 600 email: heather(a)farnet.org Washington, DC 20036 web: http://www.farnet.org -- <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech(a)eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation </A><P> Online Activist </HTML>

1 0

More on Internet connections
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 6-MAY-1996 01:36:44.84 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Options for Internet and Broadband Access =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 10:05:08 EST From: Tim Leshan <LESHAN(a)ksgrsch.harvard.edu> To: IIPLIST(a)ksgrsch.harvard.edu Subject: Announcement and Call for Participation Freedom Forum Harvard Information Infrastructure Project National Economic Council U.S. Department of Energy "THE FIRST 100 FEET" OPTIONS FOR INTERNET AND BROADBAND ACCESS October 29-30, 1996 The Freedom Forum Arlington, Virginia Announcement and Call for Participation This conference looks at options for Internet and broadband access from the perspective of home owners, apartment complexes, and small businesses. It will evaluate opportunities and obstacles for "bottom-up" infrastructure development and the implications for traditional and alternative providers at the neighborhood, regional, and national levels. We are seeking original analysis, position papers, and background material for use in the conference program, on the project website, and in a book to be published in early 1997. The conference challenges business and policymakers to rethink fundamental issues in telecommunications policy by recasting the "problem of the last 100 feet" as "opportunities for the first 100 feet." This paradigm shift suggests consumer/property owner investment as an answer to the dilemma of whether there should be one or two wires into the home. The conference will survey alternative options for local connection to the Internet from the perspective of homeowners with high-end needs for data communications, apartment owners, small businesses, and others with an interest in investing in end-user equipment and real estate. It will consider prospects for broadly distributed infrastructure investment and potential roles for utility companies, special assessment districts, municipalities, PCS providers, CAPs, IXCs, LMDS operators, and Internet access providers, as well as telcos and cable companies. It will consider strategies and policies for local interconnection and interoperability among Internet access providers. The conference will investigate constraints on and incentives for user infrastructure investment at federal, state, and local levels; whether and how trenching, conduit, and right- of-ways should be unbundled to promote consumer/property owner investment and competition among heterogeneous providers; and the need for and feasibility of interconnection at third-party or publicly maintained neighborhood access points. It will look at synergy with other policy goals and economic interests, such as intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and energy demand management. Finally, in assessing user investment as a driver for two-way broadband, it asks how scenarios for Internet access will affect broadband scenarios by stimulating demand for high-bandwidth connectivity. Rationale The growth of the Internet has been propelled in significant part by user investments in infrastructure: computers, internal wiring, and the connection (dial-up line, leased line, microwave link) to the Internet service provider. This "bottom-up" investment minimizes the investment burden facing service providers, since customers share the cost of the infrastructure and providers have no obligation to develop the infrastructure out to all potential users. Barriers to entry for service providers are low, and users retain flexibility in choosing among providers. The rapidly growing mass of Internet users, applications, and resources is now shaping demand for underlying infrastructure, so that plans for new infrastructure are driven increasingly by data rather than voice and video. There are opportunities to attract new customers instead of competing head- on for old ones. Unlike voice and video, there are incremental upgrade paths for data users and demand for upgraded access is readily stimulated by experience. Higher bandwidth connections are desired by a wide spectrum of users, from those who work at home to recreational users of the World Wide Web. The value of continuous, rather than dial-up connection to the Internet, is less widely appreciated because it is a qualitative improvement. Continuous connectivity (which can be provided by unswitched technologies) obviates tying up a telephone line, enables instant delivery of email and other time-sensitive information, and allows small businesses to advertise and publish directly to the net. Most importantly, it can enable real-time energy management with attendant cost savings that can support major infrastructure investment, which the advent of residential "wheeling" may induce consumers to make on their own. A personal computer or an inexpensive router could serve as a gateway extending Internet functions to other computers in the home, manage utility demand, operate security systems, and control any lights, sound equipment, and other household appliances. As telecommunications and electric utilities are deregulated, investment decisions will devolve into the hands of consumers, where they can be made with greater knowledge of particular benefits and tradeoffs. At the same time, new technologies, such as wireless and data transmission over power lines, will increase consumer options. There may be a variety of options for configuring "the last mile," with different balances between user-provided and centrally provided facilities. Homeowners and small businesses may have opportunities to connect to different suppliers at the curb, on the roof, on the side of the house, or somewhere in between. The early government role and subsequent commercial practices have facilitated interconnection of Internet service providers, but the limited choices at the local level -- the "last mile" as well as the "last 100 feet" -- may make interconnection an issue. At present, many local Internet access providers do not interconnect directly and traffic is sometimes routed to one of the few national exchange points hundreds of miles away. Opportunities for interconnection, along with policies on access, may determine whether intermediary transport providers, such as utility companies, emerge to link homeowner facilities at the curb with high-bandwidth Internet service providers. This analysis of "the first hundred feet" recognizes that need and demand will naturally vary greatly from home to home and from neighborhood to neighborhood. Much depends on whether there are business or telecommuting needs that can be met by individual investments in upgraded access. While this analysis looks to the Internet, it raises the issue of how the bottom-up model will affect the traditional model of a centrally provided universal service. Given basic technology that is non- proprietary and virtually commoditized, some argue that Internet service is becoming the common denominator platform on which all other services can be carried. The absence of service class priority has hampered use of real-time voice and video on the Internet, but this will soon change with the implementation of protocols that allow bandwidth reservation and packet-level service priority (RSVP and IPv6). **** We encourage submission of position papers as well independent analysis. It is expected that papers will be posted for review and revised promptly after the conference for non-exclusive publication. (The book will be part of the Harvard Information Infrastructure Project series published by MIT Press.) To ensure consideration for the program, please submit abstracts or outlines by June 20, 1996. Please direct submissions and requests for future mailings to: Tim Leshan Coordinator, Information Infrastructure Project Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 79 JFK Street Cambridge, MA 02138 617-496-1389; Fax: 617-495-5776 leshan(a)ksgrsch.harvard.edu For additional information and updates see http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/first.html Tim Leshan IIP Project Coordinator http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/

1 0

New Internet peer-reviewed journal released
by rishab＠dxm.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

New Internet Journal Released Paris, France, 1996 May 6: Coinciding with the opening of the International World Wide Web Conference, a new journal dedicated to the Internet was released today by Munksgaard International Publishers. The journal is called "First Monday" and it is a peer-reviewed, electronic journal dedicated to the Internet, and only available on the Internet. It is the first electronic journal from Munksgaard, publishers of over seventy scientific journals in dentistry, medicine, and other fields. "First Monday" will appear on the first Monday of each month. Each issue will contain five to six full-length articles, plus regular features such as interviews and reviews. The inaugural May issue contains articles by notable specialists such as David Johnson and David Post, co-directors of the Cyberspace Law Institute, and John Seely Brown, vice-president and chief scientist of Xerox Corporation and director of Xerox Palo Alto Research Center. The journal is available at http://www.firstmonday.dk The editorial team of "First Monday" is widely experienced in computing, telecommunications, and the Internet. Chief and Managing Editor is Edward J. Valauskas, author and editor of several widely recognized books on computing and the Internet, including "Internet Troubleshooter" and "Internet Initiative." He is joined by Esther Dyson as Consulting Editor and Rishab Aiyer Ghosh as Inter-national Editor. Esther Dyson is president of EDventure Holdings in New York City and chairperson of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Rishab Ghosh, based in New Delhi, is editor and publisher of the Indian Techonomist, a newsletter on India's information industry. The editorial board of "First Monday" includes Vinton G. Cerf, founding President of the Internet Society and is currently Senior Vice-President at MCI; Ed Krol of the University of Illinois, author of several books including the highly popular "The Whole Internet User's Guide & Catalog"; Bonnie Nardi of Apple Computer, author of the book "A Small Matter of Programming" and editor of "Context and Consciousness"; Rich Wiggins of Michigan State University, author of "The Internet for Everyone"; Tony Durham, Multimedia Editor of the Times Higher Education Supplement in London and a member of the team which has developed THESIS, the newspaper's Internet service; Ian Peter, consultant in information technology, media and communications policy, based in Australia; and Robert Hettinga, a digital commerce consultant in Boston. "First Monday" publishes articles on the Internet and the Global Information Infrastructure. It follows the political and regulatory regimes affecting the Internet, and examines economic, technical and social aspects of the use of the Internet on a global scale. There will also be reports on the use of the Internet in specific communities, the development of Internet software and hardware, and the content of the Internet. "First Monday" was released today on diskette, distributed at the International World Wide Web Conference in Paris, and on the First Monday Internet server at http://www.firstmonday.dk. In the future it will appear in three formats: as an electronic mail posting to subscribers; on the World Wide Web; and as an annual CD-ROM archiving all articles that have appeared in "First Monday." Munksgaard was founded in 1917. Over the years Munksgaard has expanded to become a publishing house that is internationally recognized for its scientific journals devoted to servicing the international scientific and scholarly communities. Editorial Office: Editor-in-Chief: Edward J. Valauskas (valauskas(a)firstmonday.dk) First Monday is published monthly by: Munksgaard International Publishers Nxrre Sxgade 35, P.O. Box 2148 DK- 1016 Copenhagen K Denmark e-mail: publishers(a)firstmonday.dk

1 0

No Subject
by vit 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:: Encrypted: PGP -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: 2.6.3 hEwDKlkQ745WINUBAfsH7B6NGAXK+c8CX1dS/KhyQqmQL9p8ooDnz0RiY+E62khg gIJAZ9HZSG+BGnJ6xebCKJU7zSMM8B/WzfYzzo3hpgAAAgPUxGgzy3fxGdV/vaFI CwkkWsrDP50PPQCkVWrLg33Pp3yDl92/QPnVwQBtTWLHq5LC2RdFsVzk657VVriN qXFhWwWgFlk6RWK4WDDj/fwUSzWQy5OojW9vQmUvyS0u416Y/DbpNDy4TGs+UC0G cGWcOEtTiBtSMG+qLIWCh7PDkmscf6Ze3Gy+zhTrjZ0PixZ9yRsTbMYwcqo5Gd/O c9x9E6Zf+vlNINzY2kbFt7Xbk0tbyjVFXFX4FKe6R2Ee6pvpRdDFmBYca2sfmSr/ imTrhmzpu/FrVOGB+L/VT7A2t6NzDyNitOHu70uxaeQaettNkSa63ObUbK1G8Toc 6jYGv4d7GvtXL50a+P5oFq+3qGgTeHX99Pz6M9SgCBXWbCFA4J0TEBN6CD4MVgZE qJFOqoA/zAg6l0YHOZFnyXiEcUqnd1o8AyHzRQGoVnTbmnlTof0zkqHzHgYGU8Qd HAi2Ev+usDUCzbHwAncA4moOM4bHQcT14vv6RZWTcrt3eA4ad9vsr8YlEkbM3Rjd 6S0HGBWsjRPopdfGaCFT1EDmHDm9uDjq7WqbH8/76CwFeEQNU7j9milBo4LKe/xh uUN8jq6oQVl5jBgxhK481pNxutXJWYjEv1+YdT1enKPG7A9PUtYlNGlrWcQqJiqs r7a8rnxDF4/7cSjZLEybdEgd4k+mSA== =kMl/ -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

1 0

Announce: Cryptographic extensions for Perl
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CRYPTOGRAPHIC EXTENSIONS FOR PERL _________________________________________________________________ DESCRIPTION This library contains a suite of cryptographic extensions for Perl. Also included are some extensions that have a cryptographic relevance, such as the Compress::Zlib modules, and the TrulyRandom module. These modules have been developed as extensions for performance reasons. Now available for download at http://www.systemics.com/software/ FEATURES All of the following have been implemented as Perl extensions in C: * BigInteger module (based on code from Eric Young). This module implements arbitrary length integers and some associated mathematical functions. * Compress::Zlib module (by Paul Marquess). A Perl interface to Jean-loup Gailly's and Mark Adler's info-zip zlib compression library. * Crypt::DES module (DES implementation by Eric Young). * Crypt::IDEA module. * Crypt::MD5 module (by Neil Winton and Data Security, Inc.) * Crypt::PRSG - Pseudo random sequence generator This module implements a 160 bit LFSR for use in generating pseudo random sequences. * Crypt::SHA module (by Uwe Hollerbach and based on code from NIST and Peter C. Gutmann) * Utils::TrulyRandom module, based on code from Don Mitchell and Matt Blaze (AT&T). This module generates "truly random" numbers, based on interrupt timing discrepancies. COPYRIGHT This library includes (or is derived from) software developed by (and owned by) the following: * Jean-loup Gailly and Mark Adler * Peter C. Gutmann * Uwe Hollerbach <uh(a)alumni.caltech.edu> * Paul Marquess <pmarquess(a)bfsec.bt.co.uk> * Don Mitchell and Matt Blaze (AT&T) * NIST * RSA Data Security, Inc. * Systemics Ltd <http://www.systemics.com/> * Neil Winton <N.Winton(a)axion.bt.co.uk> * Eric Young <eay(a)mincom.oz.au> Also planned for release: * Cryptographic library for Perl * PGP library for Perl * Cryptographic extensions for Java (native code) * Cryptographic library for Java * PGP library for Java

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:44 PM 5/6/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > >On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote: > >[...] > >>While strong cryptography is powerful, and secure communications >>liberating, unplugging the phones would about cripple that 'weapon' for a >>while. Any group rebelling based only on high technology communication is >>an extremely vulnerable group, both to widespread denial of service, and >>more specific 'surgical' attacks. (Motorola stock anyone?) > > Wouldn't that partially depend on: > A. the level of backups - packet radio as a backup for phones, >for instance... a reason I've been forwarding the stuff on radio to here. > B. the necessity to the government of keeping what else may >depend on those phones - the economy - going. > -Allen The attribution above is in error. I didn't type those lines above.Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: misunderstandings of PICS
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:40 PM 5/6/96 -0400, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"frantz(a)netcom.com" 16-APR-1996 20:19:13.88 >>From http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/iacwc.htm >>The second method is for a client to ask an http server to send labels along >>with the documents it requests. The server would most likely offer the >>publishers' labels, but a server could also redistribute labels from third >>parties that it cooperates with. [Client sends URL of label service to browser >>which responds with that service's label. bf] OBCRYPTO: PICS envisions that ratings distributed by this second method will be digitally signed by the 3rd party rating service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Georgia Internet
by reagle＠rpcp.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

X-within-URL: http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/ga.htm [IMAGE] Needed: a first-rate lawyer who'll fight the Internet Police law in court. Click below on the "How We Can Educate" link for more info on constructive actions. Return to NetWorld! Book | Other Musing on Intellectual Property How We Can Educate Pols, Olympic Boosters and Other Georgians | Links of Interest Contest: Write the Best "Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia" Parody The Internet Police Law: The Day the Sites Went Out in Georgia? David H. Rothman | rothman(a)clark.net Linking your Web site to anyone else's without permission? Be glad you're not in Georgia--or be worried if you are. Gov. Zell Miller on the morning of April 18 signed into a law a piece of imbecility that the Marietta Daily Journal had dubbed the Internet Police bill. House Bill 1630 may prevent Webfolk from linking from their homepages against the wishes of the linkees--at least if the other guys' names or logos are used. Is 1630 a belated April Fool's joke? I've heard of Net-dumb pols, but Georgia has out-Exoned Exon--and maybe even out-Doled Dole. Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, wrote Gov. Miller before the signing: "The language of the bill would make it illegal to create a button on our web site with Wired's 'trade name' or 'logo' without first obtaining 'permission or authorization' from Wired magazine." Whoops: oh, please, Wired--don't sue me. Actually that would be the state's job; you see, the law would let Georgia throw your posterior in jail for up to a year. Live out of state? As of this writing it was unclear how much of a danger extradition would pose--maybe none, given the lunacy of the law. Then again, there are rumors that California and other states may replicate Georgia's stupidity. The morning the Guv signed the bill, I dropped by the State of Georgia Home Page. Under "Search Engines and other Web Services" I saw a link to Yahoo. I'm glad the Georgia folks can use Yahoo from down there, rather than having to start their own. Imagine Yahoo needing permission for every link with a trademarked name. And what about a page displaying the results of a Lycos search? Now that would be fun. Can you imagine the Lycos computer e-mailing every site brought up--asking permission--before it listed Web addresses? I visited Zell Miller's Web area. Without the least irony, a headline read: "Governor Miller's Technology Initiatives Thrive." The page bragged about computers in classrooms. Just don't let the little brats grow up to start Yahoo Kudzu. According to the EFF, the same law might make it illegal even to mention a company's name on the Web without permission. True? Just imagine what this could mean to an online newspaper reviewing another publication's Web site. Already a software company outside Georgia has used existing intellectual property law to bully a reviewer. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: The media are damned fools if they support intellectual property zealotry of the kind we've seen out of Capitol Hill recently. Goodbye, First Amendment. These are national issues, alas, not just problems with the Georgia drinking water. If nothing else, I suspect that the good folks at the AT&T Business Network--the ones who run LeadStory.com, a collection of the day's hottest stories from online newspapers--may have some thoughts on the Georgia bill. To add to the fun, when I dropped by Cox Newspapers' big Web site for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, I saw a "Surf Less. Know More" ad from LeadStory.com. At the Atlanta site's Net News I just happened to read a report on a trademark infringement suit that BellSouth had filed against the an Internet directory called the Real InterNet Pages. Hmmm. Any connections here with the new law? And simply because BellSouth's print directories use the trademarked phrase "The Real Yellow Pages," is the company entitled to www.realpages.com--the smaller company's existing Web address? The Real InterNet Pages, after all, isn't saying, "www.realyellowpages.com." In any event one would hardly confuse the Real InterNet Pages with BellSouth; the pigmy tells visitors to its home page: "Not Affiliated, Associated or Connected with BellSouth or any BellSouth-related company." Coincidentally or not, the Internet Police bill was introduced by Don Parsons, a Net-innocent employee of BellSouth. According to the Conservative Policy Caucus in the Georgia House: "During floor debate, Rep. Parsons could not explain the concept of a link on a home page. It was clear to many that he had no idea of what the Internet was all about. Supposedly, his desire was to prevent 'misrepresentation' on the Internet. Parsons admitted that he had never been on the Internet, except looking over a colleague's shoulder at work." One can understand, then, why many Netfolks wonder if Parsons' employer has encouraged him to squelch competition at a time when the Baby Bells envision a Web full of Yellow Pages. Bell South vehemently denies a connection between it and the Parsons bill. Whatever the case, however, the legislation would help the Parsons' employer. Oh, I've read Parsons' stated reasons for his law. But in guarding against fraud and protecting intellectual property rights, do we really want to toss out the First Amendment? Jeff Kuester, a Net-hip attorney of intellectual property in Atlanta, says: "We should certainly strive for effective protection of intellectual property on the Web, but not by destroying this crucial part of the information superhighway. These links let people move seamlessly from Web site to Web site. They're as crucial to the Web as bridges are to our nation's system of concrete-and-asphalt roads. If nothing else, we should avoid denying Netizens the free speech guaranteed outside cyberspace." While Parsons has denied that his law would make unauthorized links illegal, its wording would suggest otherwise. Criticizing Parsons' work, the Conservative Policy Caucus quotes the essence of HB1630 as it could affect links, and I'll pass on a rough extract with some tweaks of my own for the sake of clarity and precision: "It shall be unlawful for any person...knowingly to transmit any data through a computer network...if such data uses any individual name, trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or official seal or copyrighted symbol to falsely state or imply that such person...has permission or is legally authorized to use such trade name, registered trademark..." Granted, some might say that you could assume implied consent if any material is up on an open medium like the Web and you want to link to it with appropriate identification by name. But the law is still a big threat, given the new legal liabilities it creates for journalists, publishers, activists and many others. Suppose your story online won't read like a puff piece. Will you need your target's goodwill before you can link to the site of a polluter or other recipient of negative publicity? And what about linking privately? Suppose you're on a local area network in the newsroom and want to share information with colleagues by way of an internal Web page. Will you require at least your target's tacit consent before you can do so? Exactly what does HB1630 mean by "a computer network," just the external variety? Not in my extract above was this additional language: "for the purpose of setting up, maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an electronic mailbox, home page, or any other electronic information storage bank or point of access to electronic information." Sounds as if the Internet Police law won't delight the Society for Professional Journalists, Investigative Reporters and Editors or the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press. Bill 1630 also contains other goodies, according to the valuable April 17 issue of EFFector Online and the EFF's Steele. For example, Ms. Steele says the bill could criminalize the use of pseudonyms; I'd suspect that's of interest to, say, American Online or to safety-minded parents who want their children to log on with fake names. Besides, just what's a "false" name? Ms. Steele writes of someone with the user name of "elvis" and says: "Even my own user ID, which is ssteele, does not clearly distinguish me from others with the last name of Steele and the first initial 'S.'" I myself am another good example of the identity issues that arise on a global computer network. My publisher insisted on calling my book NetWorld!, and it was logical for me to set up a NetWorld! Web site but guess what? If you do an Alta Vista search, you'll also find thousands of "NetWorld" mentions from unrelated "NetWorld" sites and the rest of the Web. Among the others are Peter's Networld from Peter Heneback, a Swedish foreign exchange student at West Anchorage High School in Alaska; NETWorld Market Place; NetWorld Publishing; NetWorld Systems; Networld +Interop, which, yes, has been known to hold expos down in Atlanta; and NetWorld Limited, a Hong Kong consulting company. And I'm to worry about other "NetWorlds" and "Networlds" from Alaska to Atlanta and Asia? While trademark law has its place, we need to allow for reasonable interpretations. I asked Prima Publishing to consult an attorney before it used NetWorld! on pulped wood. No problem, I heard. But what happens to my book's online version if I'm in Georgia and trademark fanatics prevail in court? There and elsewhere, politicians keep babbling that they'll get government off our backs. What bilge. If Georgia politicans respect citizens' rights, why is the high-tech community talking of a lawsuit against the Internet Police law? Alas, the Georgia state legislature won't meet again until next year, but meanwhile Zell Miller might speak out against his baby before it frightens away millions of dollars of high-tech business. Perhaps he can at least promise to ask his attorney general not to enforce the Internet Police law. As long as the law is still alive, I myself will do everything I can to warn Netfolks that Georgia is a risky place for them to do business right now. Meanwhile, I suspect that the Internet Police law will be like Jim Exon's Communications Decency Act. Many people will just ignore it, furthering breaking down the respect of Generation Net for politicians and bureaucrats in general. Return to Top of Page [IMAGE] HOW TO PROTEST THE SILLINESS _______________________________________________________________ The Internet Police bill--effective July 1, 1996--passed at least partly because politicians kowtowed to Big Bucks. Tell them they were wrong, that the bill will cost Georgia, that it's about as good for the state as Sherman's March was, that you'll tell your high-tech employer to stay the hell out of Georgia to avoid net.stupid regulations, that you'll think twice about attending the Olympics or buying goods that carry the Olympic logo. Let Georgia pols know that most Web sites thrive because of the ease of linking, not in spite of it. Time Magazine has zillions of links all over the Net. And without bureaucratic intervention, Netfolks already enjoy a wealth of phone- and Net-directories such as Yahoo's. Tell the Georgians that the Internet Police bill is a creature of special interests such as phone companies and, yes, politicians trying to crimp uppity rivals, including those in the Conservative Caucus. Some establishmentarians hated the idea of the conservatives' using the official Georgia seal on their Web site. This issue transcends ideology--my own politics are progressive. Protesting, you should avoid obscenity. Be angry in a rational and responsible way. Don't justify the anti-Net stereotypes that technophobes love. Georgia contacts [IMAGE] Gov. Zell Miller. I'd include an email address for Gov. Miller, but I couldn't find one--maybe I'm looking in the wrong locations on the Web, or perhaps in the wrong universe. His office phone number is 404-656-1776. Fax: 404-656-5948. Snail: Governor Zell Miller, State Capitol, Atlanta, Georgia 30334. It's just as well, actually, that you not use electronic mail since I doubt that the governor's office is that Net Aware. Otherwise why the Exon would he have signed this turkey? [IMAGE] Conservative Policy Caucus of the Georgia House of Representatives. You can email Georgia Representative Mitchell Kaye, the Webmaster, at webmaster(a)gahouse.com. Click here for Kaye's report on Parsons and the anti-Net law. Arm the Caucus with letters it can use to fight this atrocity. What the Net needs now, says Representative Kaye, is a court injunction against enforcement of the law. Anyone know a first-rate lawyer willing to work pro bono and make a name for himself or herself? If so, e-mail or phone Mitchell Kaye (770-998-2399), the legislator who so far has spent the most time and energy fighting the Internet Police law. Perhaps this case could be a natural for a group such as the American Civil Liberties Union or the Interactive Services Assocation, whose members include American Online, CompuServe and Prodigy, among others. One legislator has talked of corrective legislation, but according to Kaye's current thinking, a court challenge at this point would be more effective, since other politicians could water down a bill. At any rate, a bill couldn't be formally introduced until January 1996; and, says, Kaye, a court case could be the best approach. Stay tuned. Foes of the law are still sorting out their options as far as the best way to proceed. [IMAGE] E-mail addresses of members of the Georgia House, via the Conservative Policy Caucus. Remember, some of the people listed may be supporters of the Police Bill. [IMAGE] Names, addresses, home, office, and FAX numbers of state legislators. Click here and scroll down the list for contact information for Georgia House Speaker Thomas B. Murphy. Do not harass him--it'll just backfire. If you can manage, try instead to educate him; see if you can't save your anger for posts on the Net. [IMAGE] Don Parsons' phone number (770-728-8506) and FAX number (770-528-5754) and other contact info. Again, please avoid harassment! But do give him a piece of your mind; ideally you can fax Parsons, then email a cc: to Rep. Mitchell Kaye (mkaye(a)gahouse.com) a vehement critic of the Net Police law. First, read Don Parsons' defense of his baby. Among other things he writes that "Internet users - consumers, children, business people, clergy, etc., - have a right to expect that the Internet pages they visit are what they are presented to be." My response? Word on the Net circulates pretty quickly about frauds, and existing laws cover many situations. New, Internet-specific laws--against fraud or copyright violations--need to be much better crafted than HB1630 was. Above all, they must be infinitely more respectful of the First Amendment. [IMAGE] Georgia Attorney General Michael Bowers. His phone number is 404-656-4585; his fax number, 404-657-8733; and his snail address is: Judicial Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30334. [IMAGE] State of Georgia Home Page. Poke around. Look for pressure points--people associated with tourism and other business. See below. [IMAGE] Georgia Department of Industry, Trade & Tourism, "Georgia's official state agency for developing new jobs and creating capital investment." Sign the guest book; register your company's lack of interest in relocating there while the Internet Police bill is in effect. Use the "Description of Business" field and ask that the Webmaster forward your opinion to policymakers. [IMAGE] Yahoo listings for 1996 Olympic Games. Use the "mailto's" (where you click to start writing a letter) and sign the guest books with protests against Georgia's medieval information policies. [IMAGE] 1996 Olympic Games Home Page. Give 'em a piece of your mind on the feedback page. [IMAGE] BellSouth's Olympic links. Yes, BellSouth is an official sponsor. So if the Olympic folks take awhile to get the point, you'll know why. Of course you might try complaining to BellSouth itself--the president is Carl E. Swearington, telephone 770-391-2424; fax, 770-399-6355. [IMAGE] Cable News Network (CNN), whose Web site will be directly affected by the imbecility out of the state legislature. The feedback address is cnn.feedback(a)cnn.com. Give 'em permission to use your name and address on the feedback page. Oh, and while you're at it, you might ask CNN to forward your sentiments to Scott Woelfel, editor in chief of CNN Interactive. Tell him it's ok to link to this page, and suggest that the video part of CNN just might want to warn the world about the Internet Police bill. [IMAGE] E-mail, fax and snail addresses and phone numbers for the Georgia media--including the Atlanta papers and the Associated Press down there. From the Conservative Caucus. [IMAGE] Georgia Media List from Harden Political InfoSystems. Newspapers, magazines and broadcasters. Looks extremely comprehensive. [IMAGE] Thinking Right, a reader comment area of the Atlanta Journal. Speak up! Let Atlanta know that Georgia's on your mind! The "Piney Pete Sez" column of April 20 says of the Internet Police bill: "What prompted this action was not widespread abuse. It was one little gadfly, Rep. Mitchell Kaye, who's been using the great seal of Georgia on his conservative Website. Needless to say, Kaye is a Republican and consequently shut out of any highway largess, concrete or electronic." Return to Top of Page [IMAGE] MORE LINKS _______________________________________________________________ [IMAGE] Full text of the Internet Police bill. [IMAGE] Electronic Frontier Foundation. [IMAGE] April 17 EFF newsletter with details on the Internet Police bill. [IMAGE] Bell South Denies Lobbying for the Police Law. Rep. Don Parsons, sponsor of House Bill 1630, works for BellSouth; but the company wrote attorney Jeff Kuester a letter saying Parsons does not serve as a lobbyist--and that the actual lobbyists were "totally unaware" of the company's suit against the Real InterNet Pages. The letter said, "Bell South did not draft, sponsor, promote or lobby for 1630. Bell South took no position on the legislation whatsoever other than, when it was brought to our attention, to recommend an exemption from liability for telephone companies and Internet access providers who provide transmission services for their customers." BellSouth did say that "it is probably probably overkill and unduly complicating to make the act of trademark infringement, misrepresentation and passing off on the Internet a crime under state law." The company also offered observations on the law's effects on links--thoughts with which the Electronic Frontier Foundation would undoubtedly disagree. [IMAGE] The Prize-winning Web Page of Jeff Kuester, the Net-hip intellectual property attorney mentioned earlier, who also has an engineering background and is active in groups such as IEEE. You can bet that like Kuester, scads of other Georgians love the Net and are just as surprised and disappointed by the Internet Police law as the rest of us were. He has a page with relevant links about the law. Kuester (kuester(a)kuesterlaw.com) is working to bring state pols up to speed on Net law and technology, and he would like to expand his efforts at the national level. Send him a note if you're interested in helping out. A good cause! Note, too, the existence of a Congressional Internet Caucus. Education of policymakers is the best protection against Net-stupid legislation like HB1630. Perhaps even Parsons will see the light someday. Meanwhile, if you want to check out some first-class resources on the Net and intellectual property law, drop on by Kuester's site! [IMAGE] The Real InterNet Pages, the Net directory that the $18-billion BellSouth conglomerate is suing for alleged trademark infringement. BellSouth holds a trademark on the phrase "The Real Yellow Pages," but does that automatically entitle the company to "realpages.com" on the Net? Read why a BellSouth triumph could hurt you. The boys at realpages.com have put together a nice Web page with a yellow background ("we don't think they own the color yellow either"). E-mail your support to Don Madey at dmadey(a)realpages.com. Any lawyers out there willing to do pro bono? Publicity from such a case could be an excellent career-enhancer. [IMAGE] c|net News Article on the Police Law. [IMAGE] Georgia Cyberphobes, the Augusta Chronicle's editorial against the Net police bill--written just before Gov. Miller signed it. The Chronicle didn't see the HR1630's trademark-related language as a threat but objected to the attack on online anonymity. It called for Miller to vero the bill. [IMAGE] Editor and Publisher. He explains how links help electronic newspapers. Note: The just-supplied link will soon disappear, but when that happens, you might be able to find the column in his archives. Return to Top of Page [IMAGE] YOUR OWN "NIGHT THE LIGHTS WENT OUT" PARODY? I'M LOOKING FOR THE RIGHT ONE _______________________________________________________________ Who can come up with the best "Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia" parody-in the spirit of this site? Give it a shot. May 18 is the contest deadline, and I may extend it if Netfolks are too angry to concentrate long enough come up with a quotable parody. No prizes, just some exquisite notoriety. Please do not enter, of course, if you mind having scads of other Web sites link to your words. -David H. Rothman, rothman(a)clark.net _______________________________________________________________ Top of Page | Return to NetWorld! [IMAGE] Linking Encouraged. No Permission Needed from Me, Especially if You're in Georgia! \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ | / / / / / / / / / / _______ ________ _____ _____ _____ /// \\\ ||| \\\ /// \\\ |||\\\///||| ||| ~~ ||| /// ||| ||| ||| \\// ||| ||| __ |||~~~\\\ |||~~~||| ||| ~~ ||| \\\ /// ||| \\\ ||| ||| ||| ||| ~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ / / / / / / / / / | \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ C y b e r s p a t i a l R e a l i t y A d v a n c e m e n t M o v e m e n t --****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. Please, report inappropriate use to abuse(a)anon.penet.fi For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help(a)anon.penet.fi If you have any problems, address them to admin(a)anon.penet.fi

1 0

Re: Internet telephony report
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:58 PM 5/6/96 -0400, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > While they _probably_ aren't going to start trying to charge for >Internet phone service, the FCC still thinks it should be able to regulate >the Internet - with the egalitarian excuse of equal access as among the >reasons. Hmph... bureaucracy. Well, now we know where they are going to levy the taxes when most commerce goes on the net. They'll hit up the guys with lots of cable/fiber etc. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Bug in NOISE.SYS v0.5.5 w/fix...
by wlkngowl＠UNiX.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's a bug in the API in NOISE.SYS v0.5.5. I've uploaded a fix as noise056.zip to ftp.funet.fi, so keep an eye out for it. The fix is easy. In the file "multiplex.inc" you'll see the @ReturnOk LABEL where it restores the ds, si and bp registers... at the @ReturnErr hook it only fixes the ds and si registers. Add a "pop bp" appropriately and remake the file. Sorry for the inconvenience. --Rob

1 0

Re: misunderstandings of PICS
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:48 PM 5/6/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >please read the PICS proposal (sorry the >URL is not handy, could someone post it?) http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: WWW proxies?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:31 5/6/96, sameer wrote: >> site, the commercial value of the information that could be gained by >> logging traffic at the site is tremendous. > > The commercial value of being honest is greater. In your evaluation, perhaps. In the mind of every web proxy site? Doubtful. In fact, a former client of mine seriously considered offering an "anonymous" web proxy for the sole reason to be able to capture the traffic stats. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

Re: PICS required by laws
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"sjb(a)universe.digex.net" "Scott Brickner" 16-APR-1996 19:02:13.04 >The sorts of organizations that form the core of the internet, and are >involved in this network layer censorship scheme, just *aren't* the >sort of "subversives" (or "patriots", take your pick) that would try to >bypass the system. I am not quite certain if the model of [content provider]-[ISP]-[Phones]-[ISP]-[ISP]-[user] is going to work much longer. That routes the material through quite a few too many bottlenecks, among them the phone lines. I could reasonably easily sign up with two ISPs and start myself as a router (with a good computer and the right software), from what I know of the subject; with ecash routing of messages, this might get quite common (and profitable). When you've got a few large organizations doing the routing, what you've said is _probably_ correct. When you've got a lot of people doing it out of their garages, then it isn't. -Allen

3 2

The FBI/NSA's new escrow argument, DC crypto panel
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just came back from the Online Services Industry conference held today in Washington, DC at the Georgetown Four Seasons. It was very much a DC thing, organized by Congressmen Jack Fields and Rick White (of the Internet Caucus). The fourth panel was "Law Enforcement and Encryption in Cyberspace," with this set of characters: * Edward Allen, supervisory special agent/section chief, FBI * Clinton Brooks, advisor to the director, NSA * Dorothy Denning, professor, Georgetown University * Bruce Heiman, attorney, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds * Jim Lucier, director of economic research, Americans for Tax Reform * Marc Rotenberg, director, EPIC I was expecting fireworks, or at least a few sparks, but the panel fizzled. Both sides recounted the same threadbare policy positions we've heard for years, with one exception: the Administration's new argument against lifting crypto export controls. Allen and Brooks claimed that "there needs to be a balanced approach," arguing that other nations are relying on the U.S. to maintain export restrictions to prevent it from falling into the grasping fingers of overseas terrorists. (And yes, they mentioned child pornographers too.) The FBI's Allen said: "We have talked to our foreign law enforcement counterparts who are concerned with exporting strong crypto. Crime is increasing internationally... There is not an international free market for crypto. To a great degree, other nations have been relying on U.S. export controls to maintain stasis. What bothers me about efforts being proposed legally is that we're moving forward without understanding what we're getting into... The efforts can go to order or chaos. We're in a period where it could go to chaos." Denning recounted the tale of a New York state police bust that seized a computer with PGP, but no files were encrypted: "They hadn't used it. It was too much trouble." She said that if PGP is more "integrated," more criminals will use it. "We need to balance interests and provide for legitimate law enforcement access. Many businesses are supportive of this," said Denning. After Rotenberg and the other half of the panel rebutted, Brock Meeks asked the first question: Isn't it possible that the government may eventually ban non-third-party escrowed crypto, in a compromise move? The FBI's Allen ducked, clumsily. Meeks pressed and Brooks from the NSA allowed: "Over time, if there are advocates and society says we have to go further then we may have to." -Declan

1 0

Re: WWW proxies?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 6-MAY-1996 01:41:12.77 >-- that a model is lacking (I don't mean we don't have some ideas of what's >important, but that we haven't filled in the details, figured out what >sorts of correlations an analyst can make by looking at packet sizes, >sending times, delivery times, etc.) Hmm... I wonder if genetic algorithms would be a good way to analyze traffic. Admittedly, this may be a matter of my having a (potential) hammer and seeing things to bash with it. >-- the real world situation with remailers is that message volume is >probably way too low for comfort (my presentation on remailers at the first >CP meeting outlined a need for about 10 mixes, each mixing at least 10 >messages of the same size before remailing...and 20 mixes each mixing 30 or >more messages is much better...we are most likely far, far below this, for >nearly all remailed messages. Fortunately, most remailed messages are >either not critical or are being done for novelty, harassment, flaming, >etc.). It should be possible, given a model, to add onto existing remailers a routine that automatically forwards random messages through a random string of remailers and back to itself (or into a /dev/null address; I can see advantages and disadvantages in the resulting loss of information) at a random frequency whose bounds are dependant upon current traffic levels at that remailer. This might be supplemented by information based on statistics gotten from other remailers. I would suggest Raph Levien (sp?)'s remailer list as a basis for the random string of remailers. >(PipeNet-type schemes may help, depending on a bunch of details. So would >"local mixes in cabinets," meaning, Web anonymizers with high bandwidth >that do their mixing locally. They have to be "trusted," to some extent, >but would help a lot. There are some gotchas.) There is unfortunately a balance between what an operator will be able to take - in regards to bandwidth - and what is needed for a web anonymizer or remailer to work. For remailers, this requirement is greatly decreased by the lack of immediacy needed. -Allen

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 29-APR-1996 02:21:27.65 To: IN%"jimbell(a)pacifier.com" "jim bell" CC: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" "Cypherpunks" Subj: RE: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture? Received: from toad.com by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01I43INDKHI88WWLV8(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 02:18 EDT Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id TAA27441 for cypherpunks-outgoing; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:17:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from polaris.mindport.net (unicorn(a)polaris.mindport.net [205.219.167.2]) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA27428 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 19:17:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (unicorn@localhost) by polaris.mindport.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id AAA07591; Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:15:56 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:15:56 -0400 (EDT) From: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> Subject: RE: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture? In-reply-to: <m0uDagf-00093GC(a)pacifier.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com To: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> Cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Reply-to: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> Message-id: <Pine.SUN.3.93.960428234342.5923A-100000(a)polaris.mindport.net> X-Envelope-to: eallensmith Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Posted-Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 00:15:56 -0400 X-Sender: unicorn(a)polaris.mindport.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Precedence: bulk On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote: [...] >While strong cryptography is powerful, and secure communications >liberating, unplugging the phones would about cripple that 'weapon' for a >while. Any group rebelling based only on high technology communication is >an extremely vulnerable group, both to widespread denial of service, and >more specific 'surgical' attacks. (Motorola stock anyone?) Wouldn't that partially depend on: A. the level of backups - packet radio as a backup for phones, for instance... a reason I've been forwarding the stuff on radio to here. B. the necessity to the government of keeping what else may depend on those phones - the economy - going. -Allen

2 2

Escrowing signing vs. encryption keys
by JMKELSEY＠delphi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [ To: cypherpunks ## Date: 05/06/96 06:55 pm ## Subject: Escrowing signing vs. encryption keys. ] >Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 21:06:37 -0700 >From: Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> >Subject: Re: US law - World Law - Secret Banking >Baker's problem was that the keys would be used for signing as well >as for encryption. He said that in the U.S. they had been careful >to separate these functions in their plans. That's why we have DSS >for signatures and Clipper (Capstone, Skipjack, etc.) for >encryption. Only the Clipper keys get escrowed. The DSS keys are >kept private. >Privacy, on the other hand, at least from the point of view of >someone like Baker, is not as important. His people eavesdropped >all the time, and it wasn't that bad. So from his perspective it is >reasonable that a possibly insecure escrow system is acceptable for >encryption, but not for signatures. And that is apparently a >principle behind the US crypto policies as they have unfolded over >the last few years. There is another angle to this. If extralegal key escrow accesses are occurring, it will probably take a long time to come out, if it ever does. There's a good chance that anyone successfully eavesdropping on people by use of the key escrow mechanism will simply keep quiet about it, and while the victim may *suspect* what's happened, they won't be able to prove it. However, forged signatures *will* be noticed directly, and there will be high-profile court cases about them. Even if untrue, serious allegations of forged signatures based on escrowed signing keys will make it into the papers, and cause all kinds of chaos. Presumably, this is seen by the Feds to balance out the downside that, if I have the ability to do secure signatures with certificates, I can always use Diffie-Hellman to establish a secure session with someone else. >Hal --John Kelsey, jmkelsey(a)delphi.com / kelsey(a)counterpane.com PGP 2.6 fingerprint = 4FE2 F421 100F BB0A 03D1 FE06 A435 7E36 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMY6Vh0Hx57Ag8goBAQHI2gP/bUhtWnIjWX8xKJ44IcmdG9OqbO7PaB1B 9iu7GYFzQXLgsMdc9Opzm64W7F+NrBlE1PjOCj965bK7MC9+Lz176Bo5nBHGMktP pALZcRvm6bmNMls49abvucVr8Xm2SbDOnsp5z4NHVUuNGdXi+J5tDVR2vYqIQjh5 GmZk9fVkQUM= =r6zZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jimbell(a)pacifier.com" "jim bell" 6-MAY-1996 19:08:19.78 >At 01:44 PM 5/6/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > >>On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>>While strong cryptography is powerful, and secure communications >>>liberating, unplugging the phones would about cripple that 'weapon' for a >>>while. Any group rebelling based only on high technology communication is >>>an extremely vulnerable group, both to widespread denial of service, and >>>more specific 'surgical' attacks. (Motorola stock anyone?) >The attribution above is in error. I didn't type those lines above. Whoops. Sorry, I believe that was Black Unicorn. My apologies to both of you. -Allen

1 0

Re: Is the network layer geodesic?
by Erik E. Fair 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The principle problem is that public exchange points do not scale beyond current LAN technology (i.e. half-duplex 100 Mb/s FDDI or Ethernet), and how many DS3 (T3; 45Mb/s full-duplex!) pipes does it take to fill that up? Two. Now, drop a DEC GIGAswitch in there (16 FDDI ports, 3.2Gb/s backplane), and now you can have sixteen peers on the exchange. Last count I saw, there are 1,800 ISPs operating in the USA alone, and *everyone* want to be at the exchange points. Oops. How many exchange points are there? Well: NSF Network Access Points (NAPs): New York (well, Pennsauken, NJ; Sprint), Chicago (Ameritech), San Francisco (Pac*Bell) MAE-EAST (D.C.), MAE-WEST (Mountain View-San Jose), MAE-LA, CIX (San Jose) FIX-EAST (D.C.), FIX-WEST (Mountain View; just for the Feds) SWAB (D.C., but almost no one left there). There are probably a few new ones that are forming that I am unaware of as yet, but the point is that they're small-fry. There are also probably exchange points outside the USA, but I bet they're being held up with PTT B.S. The Internet is amorphous. It ain't a star, exactly, but it still not too far from that. However, to get away from this situation into the rich and more fully amorphous connectivity we used to take for granted in the UUCP network, we're going to have to see a lot more cooperation on the part of the small ISPs in agreeing to talk *directly* to each other to exchange traffic, and more small exchange points, instead of the small number of large ones. Of course, this means that you, Mr. or Ms. Discriminating Internet Consumer, must educate yourself a little, and ask interesting questions like, "why do my packets have to go to California to get across town to the ISP my friend uses?" If the customers ask, the ISPs will serve. They just gotta know what you want (and you have to be willing, of course, to pay for it). Erik Fair

1 0