December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Crypto Law Survey updated
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: Raph
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:22 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >I have found it convenient to retrieve Raph's list off c'punks, as opposed to >fingering. I do hope this service to the community will continue on one forum >or another. You can of course also get it from the web page listed in the listing... # 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

alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.*
by Mullen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I deleted the mailings which listed them. If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of alt.cypherpunks.technical alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Did I miss any? Name-mangle? I also have listed the following alternate list hosts cypherpunks(a)algebra.com cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net cypherpunks(a)ssz.com If anyone has a more complete list of hosts, I'd be happy for additions to the list. Thanks! ~ Patrick

1 0

Re: Any more like www.anonymizer.com ??
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:29 pm -0500 on 2/18/97, ! Drive wrote: > A proposal and prototype of a different anonymity mechanism can be found at: > http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/projects/onion-routing/overview.html And, of course, you can hear about the next generation from the same bunch, on Monday morning at FC97: Unlinkable Serial Transactions Paul F. Syverson (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA), Stuart G. Stubblebine (AT&T Labs--Research, Murray Hill, NJ, USA), David M. Goldschlag (Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, USA) :-). <http://www.offshore.com.ai/fc97/> Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/ FC97: Anguilla, anyone? http://www.ai/fc97/

1 0

Re: PGP key compromise with multiple independent encryptions of same message?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:27 AM 2/17/97 -0500, David Coe wrote: >If I were to PGP-encrypt the same exact message to a number of >different people, each copy with that person's public key, would >I be making it easy (or easier) for one (or a group) of those >recipients to compromise another recipient's private key? If you're doing it as N separate messages, you're using N separate IDEA session keys; IDEA's strong enough that's no risk, especially since they'll be using separate Initialization Vectors. If you use the multiple-recipient capability, which uses one copy of the message encrypted with one session key, and separate headers with the session key encrypted with each public key. If PGP didn't take precautions to prevent it, there are attacks on RSA which can be used when you encrypt the same message with different RSA keys. However, PGP pads the session key with different random padding for each session-key-encrypted-with-public-key header, so they're different messages, so there's no risk there either. So don't keep worrying about it; use whichever is more convenient. (But it was worth worrying about once. :-) # 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

Crypto Law Survey updated
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have just updated my survey of existing and envisaged cryptography laws and regulations. See the Crypto Law Survey at http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm This update includes: - New lay-out. Digital signatures replaced to a separate overview. - New entries on Finland (export), Hong Kong (import, export), New Zealand (export), Poland (import) -Update on Australia (government encryption of classified data), Finland (no key-escrow), France (TTP law published), Japan (general position, wiretap law), Netherlands (extend decryption command), OECD (Group of Expert okays guidelines), Scandinavia (secure email system), Switzerland (telecom encryption, export), US (Karn appeal, annual figures report) -Corrections or clarifications on Australia (export, public domain software), Belgium (export), Germany (export), US (Bernstein, NRC report) -URLs changed in France (TTP law), US (Bernstein) Bert-Jaap

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks.ebonics
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. Bell wrote: > At 11:16 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: > >With the exceptions of AP (oh so clearly way off-topic), > Quite to the contrary, AP is NOT "oh so clearly way off-topic." First AP, > as I've sketched it uses many of the > encryption/digital-signature/verification techniques which are often > discussed here and are essentially universally agreed as being on-topic. Uhhh.... Jim? I think that Alec and friend were tweaking Igor. Think Sarcasm. Then again I could be wrong. I was once.

1 0

RE: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!!
by Juriaan Massenza 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ROFL. Rock on Bill! ;-) >-----Original Message----- >From: Bill Clinton [SMTP:president@whitehouse.gov] >Sent: Sunday, February 16, 1997 4:57 PM >To: Those cypher-rebels >Subject: We're in Anguilla! Comon down!!! > >My fellow cypherpunks, > > I wanted to let you all know, we are having a great time, building >a router to the 21st Century, down here in sunny Anguilla. Al and I will >be wiring Anguilla's great high school for the internet. Afterwards, we'll >meet with some longtime supporters of the democratic party for a beer. > > Spaces at the conference are still available, I didn't let those >folks at American strike, so you have no excuses to be anywhere else next >week. > >Willy >Citizen Unit 429-92-9947 > >

1 0

Cypherpunks Mailing List (Was: Re: When and where?)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to >happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, >argument, and gas. There are a variety of approaches being pursued in parallel. You can subscribe to cypherpunks(a)Cyberpass.net by sending mail to majordomo(a)Cyberpass.net with the usual syntax (send it a message body of "help" if you want details.) It should gateway to the other mail servers as they develop. It's currently getting everything from cypherpunks(a)toad.com, which I've no unsubscribed to to avoid getting duplicate copies of everything. If you're one of those people getting one or more copies of the cypherpunks mailing list and you don't want to, find out where your mail is coming from and send mail to majordomo there.... # 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: Constitution and a Right to Privacy
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. may wrote: > At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government > >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to > keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of > Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right > to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in > some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the > First. Amendment X- (1791) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. As far as my reading goes, the Constitution (of which the BoR is a portion, IIR my "civics" (more like uncivics) classes properly) doesn't give the Feds the right to invade my privacy, and although not _explicit_, Also: Amendment IX -(1791) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Seems to indicate that even if it isn't listed, we should still have it. Then: Amendment IV- (1791) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Seems (to me, and IANAL) indicate that there is (at least in the minds of the writers) a distinction between _public_ information which is fair game, and public information, which is only fair game if there is enough public information to justify crossing that line. > Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this. > Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been > long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the > latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style). There is a big question in my mind whether things are so complicated that we need lawyers, or they are so complicated because we have lawyers. It seems to me that the constitution is written rather simply, at least prior to the 14th amendment. Congress Shall Make No Law... where is the confusion? It is the fact that some people "know best" what is good for others, and wish to enforce this "knowlege" upon the rest of us. God save me from your over zelous followers. > > The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to > privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made > this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from > the Constitution. > > (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion > was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally > protected by a woman's right to privacy?) Or a man's.

1 0