December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: UK to ban free use of crypto?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:56 AM 3/24/97 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >The document is at http://dtiinfo1.dti.gov.uk/pubs/ >>It quite clearly does not intend to ban the use of cryptography or the >>publication of cryptographic software. > >And Michael Froomkin offers similar sentiments. They're both lawyers, >and I'm not (:-), so they're expected to do a better job of reading >the legal parts of it. On the other hand, the DTI says: > 57.The legislation will provide that bodies wishing to offer > or provide encryption services to the public in the UK will be > required to obtain a licence. The legislation will give the > Secretary of State discretion to determine appropriate licence conditions. >and it's got a really broad definition of "encryption services", >including even things such as time-stamping. Allowing government to "license" such services is a truly awful eventuality. If such organizations merely had to comply with limited number of laws, getting around those laws would be relatively easy. And the burden of proof (in many/most jurisdictions) is on the government to prove "guilt." But the moment you start "licensing" those organizations, the licensing terms may allow refusal or revocation of license for little or no reason, or hidden reasons: Perhaps the organization wouldn't "play footsie" with the government, giving up some information secretly and without a warrant. Potentially a large business goes down the drain. Licensing is, therefore, an invitation to an essentially unlimited amount of coercion and manipulation. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: INFO: Pro-CODE testimony available now online at democracy.net!
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:22 PM 3/24/97 -0500, Shabbir Safdar wrote: >The hearing was held by the Senate Commerce Committe to consider S. 377, >the Promotion of Commerce online in the Digital Era (Pro-CODE) Act and this >issue of US encryption policy -- a critical issue to the Internet user >community. I, and maybe a lot of other people, are still waiting for somebody to do a side-by-side comparison of "Pro-Code 1997" with last year's version, the original. What has changed? For the worse? Why? Who wanted it changed? Who changed it? Are they embarrassed? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: remailer spam throttle
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:46 PM 3/24/97 -0500, Andy Dustman wrote: >The first idea, which I've mentioned before, is requiring users to "sign" >a user agreement (magic cookie exchange) before they can send or receive >messages. This agreement basically states that the operator does not >monitor or filter based on content, and cannot trace messages back to the >original sender, and thus is not liable under US law for contents (check >some of the CDA provisions); and that the user is wholly responsible for >the legality of any messages sent. I think there are two broad models of complaints/problems with remailers: 1. The recipient is angry because they received a message they didn't like. (because it's an advertisement, or it's rude, or it's an image that their parents didn't like ..) 2. A third party is angry because the sender sent some information to the recipient which the third party thinks should not have been sent. (copyright, trademark, defamation, tortious interference with [prospective] contract, etc.) Your "contract" model (which looks like you really mean it to be a waiver of warranty/damages and/or an indemnification agreement) addresses (1) to the point of overkill, but it doesn't reach (2), because there's no contract with the third party, who is the party who's likely to be filing suit. (Indemnification by the sender might work, if you worded the contract correctly - but then you've got to abandon anonymity, and the value of indemnification from person you don't know whose assets/finances are unknown is pretty low.) Further, some fraction of the messages causing concern are message sent or available to minors .. whose contracts (modulo some exceptions) are voidable at their option. :( >The second idea, which I want to implement in conjunction with the above, >is to insert a disclaimer in the message body at the top of the message >with the important points (and references to) the user agreement, >including how to block messages. There would be a mechanism for clueful >users to disable this for messages they receive. This also works better for messages which are bothersome because of (1), but not (2). You can't, as a general rule, evade a duty imposed by law by posting signs saying "I'm not subject to a duty imposed by law." If it was that easy, we'd all be driving cars marked "GET OUT OF MY WAY, I'M NOT LIABLE IF I DRIVE INTO YOU". (Of course, such signs are still useful, if they trick people into not even thinking about suing someone who's got such a sign .. :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQEVAgUBMzehnv37pMWUJFlhAQF/Jwf/QXgM9arbu4ERP4HwcNciKxfLLJFu7/0e yLEmuh0Nh7Ici0DbTtHK25ff8q/IHHMPZwuaNE9fXRhgewMvZKLrRXicBjpLisZE 3xjbuUwfqghyf9isa0vV6gOuGeZrzA10qqBFhze+kqkBN3qgT6Zk6c2xbT6rBxeA TaD4Nwpg0xBKjHZjP8IYeYOIxN0zEpa3YTV4PSWKieHj71nfpa7B4FUiPHWZUOqA x+p3oDV6dBkkkvxpASU5ifhTl0eRVO+xSidOZz6rF+cKyIELrk1A9j3BbdiwfyUy jmr/0kin8OEqEkvOSQ1SJipEvEQbhauMMzoKLpVwngdO3ErX1SB6gg== =QSem -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

Re: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

snow <snow(a)smoke.suba.com> writes: > The Loon wrote: > > Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> writes: > > > Dale Thorn wrote: > > > > > Really? Define _common_. I have lived in the Mid West for about 85% o > > > > > my life, and I know no one who learned these things from their parent > > > > C'mon guys. Parents diddling with their kids is more than common - > > > > probably 1/3 of all fathers do something sexual with one or more > > > > of their children at some point. People just suppress it. > > > I can't believe it could be that common without the government > > > finding a way to 'tax' it. > > Def: relative humidity - the sweat on snow's balls as he fucks his sister. > > Well, at least she was better than your wife. Was your sister also better than your mother? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

3 2

Tim C. May's Interpretation of the U.K. Proposal
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > > The U.K. may sense that, absent such "local content" laws, the market for > key signings, time-stamping, and other services will naturally concentrate > in certain markets. > Longer term, the concentration may be more > globalized, or even in "cyberspace," but almost certainly not in Britain. > Nations may thus fear this flight of such services to other countries. Tim, at his best, interprets the U.K. laws from both a global and local perspective. Certainly, any actions of the U.K., in particular, should be viewed from the lingering shadow of the British Commonwealth. The U.K., having ruled an Empire, is much more cognizant of the implications of how the structure of proposed legislation will affect the expansion of global aims, or the protection of indigeonous rule. Although "local content," as Tim points out, is undeniably one of the major factors behind the legislation, the U.K. is also undoubtedly positioning themselves to resist letting the *power* that comes from information *control* fall into the hands of others. We have passed from the age when currency, alone, ruled. We are now truly in the Information Age, and those who wish to rule, to control others, must rule and control information. This is why the great battles of the day now surround standards and encryption, and encryption standards, above all. The US Bumverments reversal on encryption policy is not a result of enlightenment, but a result of other nations taking a leading role in encryption development. They have not really abandoned their plans to control all information, but have merely recognized that they must move their efforts into the global community before other powers have locked up the market. The only solution to the threat of global information control by one, or a few, players, is to promote the widest possible variety of encryption development. > So, besides the obvious OECD/New World Order interpretations, the U.K. > action may be a sign of something we may see more often: various countries > attempting to restrict extra-territorial uses of encryption services for > economic as well as for perceived national security reasons. Not just national security, but national *control*. Perhaps the U.K. is the first country to truly recognize and act on the threat of national borders falling victim to the global potential of new Internet technology. After all, they were one of the first nations to feel the sting of the printing press, and to experience the birth pains of the global changes that it would give birth to. Truly their is another great global war shaping up, but this time the battle will be fought with bits and bytes, and the battleground will be electronic. The winner will rule the medium. The medium IS the message. Those who rule the medium will rule the message. And in the Information Age, the message will rule the world. "In the beginning, was the Message. And the Message was with God, and the Message WAS God." McLuhan was a voice crying in the wilderness, an electronic John the Baptist. He, too, spoke of one who would come who was greater than he. And he warned of the evil one who would fight to rule the minds of all mankind. He warned of wolves, in sheep's clothing, who would claim that their aim was to protect us from pornographers and drug dealers. Well, not in the King James version, perhaps, but I am certain that it was worded that way in "Tim's Vernacular Translation of the Bible." TruthMonger N o t D r. R o b e r t s ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

WebWorld 15
by Bubba Rom Dos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

WebWorld 16
by Bubba Rom Dos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: remailer spam throttle
by Bubba Rom Dos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Back wrote: > With hash marks (##) "hash" capability remailers can already be made > to do this, where it will work, but this could be made the default, to > set the From to remailer(a)dev.null or whatever. No answer is required, > or possible via the from address (for mix and typeI), so why bother > with a valid From field? Adam, All remailer owners have full permission to use my dev.null server as their From address. I have a highly efficient staff at my command and I can assure everyone that their replies will be discarded in the order that they are received. Bubba "He who shits on the road, will meet flies upon his return."

1 0

BXA InfoSys Meeting
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Federal Register: March 25, 1997: Bureau of Export Administration Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee; Notice of Partially Closed Meeting A meeting of the Information Systems Technical Advisory Committee will be held April 15 & 16, Room 1617M-2, in the Herbert C. Hoover Building, 14th Street between Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues, N.W., Washington, D.C. This Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to information systems equipment and technology. April 15 Closed Session 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. 1. Discussion of matters properly classified under Executive Order 12958, dealing with U.S. export control programs and strategic criteria related thereto. April 16 General Session 9:00 a.m.-12:00p.m. 2. Opening remarks by the Chairman. 3. Update on implementation of the Wassenaar Arrangement. 4. Presentation on Hewlett-Packard Company key-recovery products for the International Cryptographic Framework. 5. Comments or presentations by the public. Closed Session 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. 6. Discussion of matters properly classified under Executive Order 12958, dealing with U.S. export control programs and strategic criteria related thereto. The General Session of the meeting is open to the public and a limited number of seats will be available. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. Written statements may be submitted at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded at least one week before the meeting to the address listed below: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, OAS/EA MS: 3886C, Bureau of Export Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C. 20230. ----- Note: EO 12958 covers classified national security information: http://jya.com/eo12958.txt (100K)

1 0

Cato Institute paper on "Lessons from FCC Regulation"
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 07:30:50 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Cato Institute paper on "Lessons from FCC Regulation" [I read through most of this paper last night. It doesn't say anything new about the CDA per se, but it is worth reading for what it says about way the Fairness Doctrine was used to intimidate political opponents, and how government controls over the content of speech are intolerable. --Declan] ************* Linkname: 270. Chilling the Internet? Lessons from FCC Filename: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-270es.html CHILLING THE INTERNET? Lessons from FCC Regulation of Radio Broadcasting by Thomas W. Hazlett and David W. Sosa Executive Summary Congress included the Communications Decency Act in the Telecommunications Act, which was signed into law on February 8, 1996. The CDA sought to outlaw the use of computers and phone lines to transmit "indecent" material and provided jail terms and heavy fines for violators. Proponents of the act argue that it is necessary to protect minors from undesirable speech on the burgeoning Internet. The CDA was immediately challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union, and the special three-judge federal panel established to hear the case recently declared the act unconstitutional. Yet its ultimate adjudication remains in doubt. Ominously, the federal government has long experimented with regulations designed to improve the content of "electronic" speech. For example, the Fairness Doctrine, imposed on radio and television stations until 1987, was an attempt to establish a standard of "fair" coverage of important public issues. The deregulation of content controls on AM and FM radio programming, first under the Carter Federal Communications Commission in early 1981 and then under the Reagan FCC (which abolished the Fairness Doctrine in 1987), led to profound changes in radio markets. Specifically, the volume of informational programming increased dramatically immediately after controls were ended--powerful evidence of the potential for regulation to have a "chilling effect" on free speech. ******* Thomas W. Hazlett is a professor of agricultural and resource economics and director of the Program on Telecommunications Policy, University of California, Davis. David W. Sosa is a doctoral student in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis. This article originally appeared in the Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, an online journal, and is reprinted with permission.

1 0