December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The Pro-CODE Bill could make things worse!
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:44 AM 3/5/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >"Exports. The publisher or manufacturer of computer software or >hardware with encryption capabilities shall disclose (for reporting >purposes only) within 30 days after export to the Secretary such >information regarding a program's or product's encryption capabilities >as would be required for an individual license to export that program >or product." > >The former has no real force, as "findings" aren't enforceable, but are >intended for use by courts who are interpreting or construing a statute. >But I don't see a technical reason why the latter wouldn't be enforceable. >(Modulo the First Amendment, of course.) Can it be construed as a "taking"? (Or was that just an "excise tax", payable in intellectual property rather than in money?) Unless the information required for an individual license is substantially less under the New Regime than under the Ancien' Regime, they're asking for a lot of information - in the past, it's included source code, documentation, etc., as well as customer data. What restrictions are there on government use of this information apply? State governments, e.g. California, have a history of ripping off copyright and refusing to accept lawsuits against themselves - can the Feds do the same? Maybe they can't refuse to let you export any more, but can they threaten to publish your source code on http://www.dockmaster.mil/warez/ if you don't do what they want?.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Re: EU-FBI Wiretap Pact and CALEA (Digital Telephony)
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jim bell wrote: > > At 02:25 AM 3/3/97 -0800, Tim May wrote: > >So, either the reporters here have it wrong, by implying CALEA and the > >joint U.S.-U.K. agreeement applies to _e-mail_, or in fact CALEA is being > >seen as applicable to e-mail. If the latter, then things are in much, much > >worse shape than many of us feared. > > > >If this interpretation is upheld by the courts, we are in a state of war. > >--Tim May > > Indeed, we are. Notice also that there appears to be no illusion that > these kind of bills are being done due to public demand: News on this > subject is essentially nil, particularly in the mainstream news media. When one begins adding up all of the ways in which the country is being regulated and legislated 'outside' of the influence of the voters, then it becomes apparent that we acually live in a demon-mockracy. It makes for great news when some 'little guy' manages to 'slip one by' Big Brother, but the reality is that the court system is ruled by money and power. As in the example stated above, much of the legislation proffered by those elected bears little resemblence to issues that are of genuine concern to the electorate. Any issues that the government can't ramrod through using the methods above become matters of 'National Security'. The 'law of the land' then ceases to apply, as 'Emergecy Measures' and secretive regulatory agencies write the law with no voting and a single stroke of the pen. The government even has the power to negate the ability of the individual or group to act in their own interest simply by making laws and regulations vague and/or complicated enough that it is unfeasible to act simply because of the time, energy, and funds required to do so--not to mention the 'risk' involved. Through use of regulatory approval, or witholding of such, the government has the ability to influence the fast-moving course of various areas of technology. Does anyone here want to make large investments in a product that they 'may or may not' be able to sell? This forum has members in all areas of expertise surrounding crypto issues, but can anyone state, unequivocally, all of the finer points surrounding legislation, regulation, etc., in this area? (Even if you think you 'can' legally do this-or-that, are you going to do so if told by the government that you can't and will be subject to prosecution and/or financial loss?) Do you expect for the laws to apply equally to all in areas of major government interest? Some companies are 'approved' for export, while, on very questionable legal basis, others are 'denied' approval. Do you expect this type of gladhanded regulatory approach to be any different for CypherPunks remailers, versus military Onion Routers? When some remailer operator is 'set-up' by the Right Reverend G. Stooge on a pornography bust, or by G.I.Joe on a terrorism bust, do you expect the target to be a CypherPunk or a Vice-Admiral? The fact of the matter is, the government is fully capable of burying the facts on any area of interest they wish, under cover of defending us from the 'bad guys' lurking in the bushes, and once every four years they step into the limelight to decide who gets to spend the next four years passing another mountain of legislation that, inch by inch, eats away at the rights and freedoms that are theoretically guaranteed by the Constitution. One has to wonder just how many times in history a vote in favor of restricting the privacy and rights of citizens was gained by trading off a vote affecting 'hog futures'. -- Toto http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

No Subject
by Mix 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Embedded in Tim C. Maypole's babblings are preposterous lies, wild distortions, child pornography (both as graphic descriptions and in JPEG format), ethnic slurs, and racial epithets. o o o o o /~> <><><> <> Tim C. Maypole o...(\ |||||| ||

4 3

Re: truth (lack thereof) and the press
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attila T. Hun wrote: > WHEN CULTURES COLLIDE > By Bob Djurdjevic > > The Mexican government itself is working to infiltrate and subvert > our government. They are working to grant dual nationality or > citizenship to encourage Mexican to become U.S. citizens so they can > "vote for Mexican interests" in the United States. > The United States is being > invaded by Mexico. The intent is to retake the American Southwest and > rename it Aztlan. Those who resist are called racist and will are > subject to attack. > > Published in THE WASHINGTON TIMES > BOB DJURDJEVIC, August 18, 1996 Think how much greater the threat would be if the U.S. was actually run by the voters. -- Toto http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

Secure checksums
by nobody＠hidden.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy C. Mayhem's abysmal grammar, atrocious spelling and feeble responses clearly identify him as a product of the American education system. >\\\|/< |_ ; (O) (o) -OOO--(_)--OOOo- Timmy C. Mayhem

3 2

RE: Microsoft Authenticode key security
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

William H. Geiger III writes: > In <L0c53D131w165w(a)bwalk.dm.com>, on 03/05/97 at 07:44 PM, > dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) said: > > >"Bob Atkinson (Exchange)" <bobatk(a)EXCHANGE.MICROSOFT.com> writes: > > >> Actually, and sort of to the point, no, the keys never actually ever the > >> BBN box, except as part of a backup procedure in which they are > >> extracted in a doubly-encrypted form for which for security reasons you > >> need the manufacturer's help in restoring. > >> > >> To this day, no human or computer other than the box itself knows the > > >But do we necessarily believe what Microsoft people say? > > If Bill Gates got on national TV and told the world that the sky was blue > I'd have go outside and look for myself. Actually, around Redmond, gray skies are much more common. Really guys, If you want to attack Authenticode (and I personally consider it a bandaid on a dangerous system), then stealing or buying the key is not the approach to take. I see two possible approaches to prove it's weakness. 1. If they are using RSA, factor the public key. This depends on it's length. Considering the amount of cpu people seem to be able to muster for distributed cracks, etc, I suspect that 512 bit keys will soon be vulnerable (equiv = RSA 155). 2. Write a Trojan Horse ActiveX control which disables the Authenticode checking, then covers it's tracks. No, I'm not working on either of these. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com Disclaimer: I speak for myself, not my employer.

2 1

Re: Speech
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Homosexual Charles Platt <cp(a)panix.com> writes: <garbage> > Dmitri Vulis was kicked off my ISP many months ago for allowing multiple > logins under his user name and password, presumably so that his friends at > Brighton Beach could share his account without paying the $10 per month > for email+Usenet. At the very least, this indicates a certain ... um ... > lack of class. <more garbage> This is a lie with no basis in reality whatsoever. I'm glad that CHarles Platt and other homosexuals are dying from AIDS. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

2 1

Re: New York Times report on FC97
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > This is my view as well. > I welcome the clarifications Vince Cate has provided, and I wish him well > in Anguilla. And I welcome, as always, the various comments of Black > Unicorn about the offshore investment and offshore tax avoidance market. [snip] > At least here in sunny California (it ain't subtropical, but it's warm > enough for me most days) I can sit on my mountaintop and rant as much as I > want without fear that I'll be invited to leave. And only one of my assault > rifles was ever registered to me, courtesy of the fascist Dianne Fineswine > and her commie sympathizer friends. [Serious thought] Some people I know have found a haven they swear by in Costa Rica. Apparently you don't have to be rich to live there.

2 1

Medical Records Security
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The new "Protecting Electronic Health Information" report by the National Academy of Sciences is at: http://jya.com/pehi.htm (615K) There is quite a lot of crypto discussion. The NY Times featured this report on Page One today. It's worth reminding that this report and the recent one on secrecy both fault national encryption policy and emphasize that it's time to break the logjam caused by NatSec/LEA dispute with commerce, and get on with protecting the privacy of citizens from government and commerce working in cahoots. Note that commerce is seen as much a threat as government, with the looming probablility that government and commerce will unite against the citizenry, now as ever, both claiming to protect from the other, using their phony fight as a camouflage for royal screwing rights.

1 0

Re: toad
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > Dale Thorn wrote: > [about gilmore] > > I didn't mean he shouldn't read them, although if he did, it might > > be a first! I meant that if the messages pass thru him before any- > > one else gets to see them, well, better check them carefully... > i suggest that you write a script that checks on everybody, including > myself. it should basically subscribe to all mailing lists and store > checksums with hostnames indexed by message-id. I would if I could. You know how I love to produce those charts with [STATS] in the header. I'm a heavy user of difference-utility programs and personal "cooks" on the daytime job, but my problem here is I don't run a real O/S (I have Win95), and so getting the mail into a parseable format is prohibitively time-consuming. If the c-punks were a real threat to national security or something (what a hoot that would be!), you can be sure there'd be a lineup at the O/S utility window to get whatever traffic analysis s/w was available. Right now I do my part the hard way, i.e., hunt, peck, and hope the Windows system doesn't crash every 25 messages, which is its usual. Maybe IBM's are better - I use HP.

1 0