December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: More on Cellular Encryption Docs
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:10 PM 2/1/97 -0500, John Young wrote: >Here's more on the controlled documents for cellular encryption >from TIA/EIA we described in a 26 January post to cpunks: ... > TR45.0.A > Common Cryptographic Algorithms, Revision B > June 21, 1995, 72 pp. (With ITAR notice on every page) Of course, ITAR as recently modified says it's ok to send this stuff overseas to foreigners, as long as it's on paper. There may be separate restrictions on sending it, or on copying, but they're based on copyright or contractual non-disclosure. # 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: Cyphernomicon by Tim May
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

blanc wrote: > From: Toto, quoting the Cyphernomicon > 3.5.1 Contrary to what people sometimes claim, there is no ruling > clique of Cypherpunks. Anybody is free to do nearly anything, > just not free to commit others to course of action, or claim > to speak for the "Cypherpunks" as a group (and this last > point is unenforceable except through reputation and social repercussions). > Toto, I'm surprised at how seriously you take the underlying anarchist > philosophy of the list; you identify so closely with it, and have responded > to its moderation as though it really would be "the end of freedom", even > though you seem to have appeared, or else come out of lurking, only > recently. Is this because you value anarchy, or free speech, or the > existence of the Cypherpunks as a unique group of stray cats [ :>) ]? > Side note: Since Tim isn't on the list and hasn't been for a month, I've been > wondering if it had anything to do with the moderation experiment, although > it is unlike him to have left without either an argument or at least some > kind of statement about it. Maybe Tim's Last Words got "lost", eh? So far, several people have stated that "it could happen".

1 0

NSA Material at the National Archives
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For access to the 5,000 items declassified under NSA's OPENDOOR program (http://www.nsa.gov:8080/programs/opendoor) we got this answer from the National Archives: Dear Mr. Young: This is in response to your electronic mail inquiry of December 20, 1996, concerning National Security Agency records transferred to the National Archives. The material described on the NSA web site was transferred to the National Archives and made available in April 1996. We can supply you with electrostatic (paper) copies of select files for $0.25 per page. Please let us know which files you would like copied, and we will send you a reproduction price quote (please include your mailing address with all such requests). We ask that you limit each request to five files. Should you choose to come to Washington to do research, our records and microfilm publications are available for consultation without charge in our research room. The National Archives at College Park (Archives II), is located at 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland. If you do not have a research card, you must apply for one in the reception area. Research room hours (except legal holidays) are 8:45 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday and Wednesday; and 8:45 a.m. to 9 p.m., Tuesday, Thursday and Friday. Our subject matter specialists are not on duty after 5:15 p.m. The research rooms also are open on Saturday from 8:45 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., with a small research room staff present. Requests for records must be made before 3:30 p.m. Monday-Friday; no requests can be made on Saturday. The telephone number for the Archives II Reference Branch is 301-713-7250. Ken Schlessinger Archives II Textual Reference Branch National Archives at College Park 8601 Adelphi Rd College Park, MD 20740-6001 kenneth.schlessinger(a)ARCH2.NARA.GOV

1 0

Re: "Secret" Postal Device stolen
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:51 PM 2/1/97 -0800, you wrote: > Is anyone on the list willing to 'knock off' a couple of mail >carriers and get back to us with a definitive answer on this? We were joking about this last night - this is just encouraging people to hold up mail carriers and say "Hand it over!" "Hand over what?" "You, know, the thingie" "What thingie?" "The one they steal from mailmen in Miami" "You mean this?" "No, it wouldn't be one of them, not worth enough" "How about one of these?" "Maybe, but that's probably not it" "My mailbag?" "No, that's too obvious." "ID card?" "No, you don't look enough like me" "Dog repellent?" "No, that's kind of smelly*" Of course, as Toto suggested, it could be just that the carriers are delivering dope on the side, or maybe they're stealing the mail carriers' shirts to complete their disgruntled postal workers' costumes. [*"Cheshire perhaps?" "No, we're all out of that"...] # 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: Libel, Times v. Sullivan
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:52 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: >Also, people interested in _Times v. Sullivan_ and the interplay between >defamation and the First Amendment might find "Make No Law: The Sullivan >Case and the First Amendment" by Anthony Lewis (ISBN 0-697-73939-4) of >interest. The decision itself is online at ><http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=376&invol >=254> - the factual summary of the Sullivan case posted here was not >correct, and the first few pages of the opinion provide a description of >the underlying facts. > >Since we've now got Jim Bell arguing that it's obvious that a free and open >society must tolerate anything which might be defamatory, and Jim Choate >arguing that it's obvious that a free and open society cannot tolerate >anything which might be defamatory, I think I'm going to wander away from >this discussion confident that the answer is, at least, nonobvious. :) Your last paragraph looks like an exercise of the silly game the TV show "60 minutes" producers often play when they read the letters from the audience about a previous report on a controversial subject. They first read a letter from an outraged viewer who claims that the TV show's producers must have been biased in one direction, and then they read another letter from a different viewer who alleges they showed a bias in the opposite direction. The show is trying to leave you with the impression that they MUST have been unbiased, because they are being accused of diametrically opposite leanings. All they are really showing is that given the hundreds and probably thousands of letters they receive on each show weekly (which are, by definition, written by self-motivated people) they can get at least one on each end of the spectrum for whatever subject they've just covered. Not surprising. (If anything, I'd be surprised if they ever DON'T recieve at least two such letters which could be misused in this way...) So before you "wander away," perhaps you ought to explain why we NEED defamation laws? The sun would still rise tomorrow morning absent them. A few feelings might be hurt, that's true, but on the other hand the implied endorsement of The State ("If that statement wasn't true, he couldn't print it!") has a, cumulatively, far greater impact on all of us. A clue is present in the likely fact that the origins of defamation laws were primarily to keep the king and the upper-crust free of printed and verbal attack directed by the lower-classes, even given the presence of whatever nominal "free-speech" guarantees were present. Explain, for example, that while it is now universally recognized by the truth is a defense for libel accusations, it was NOT true when William Penn went on trial for libel in the late 1600's. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > It has been asserted that I am claiming that a free and open society should > not abide any and all actions in contrast to Jim Bell's assertion that a > free and open society must tolerate any action. > This is not my case at all. I hold that a DEMOCRATIC society with a HEALTHY > ECONOMIC system must have some minimum standards on what is allowed. By no > means do I hold that the ONLY means of a free and open society is a democracy. > It is quite possible to have an anarchy which would also be a free and open > society and by DEFINITION would tolerate any action by its members acting > individualy or in concert. [snip] Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide unnecessary.

1 0

Re: "Strong" crypto and export rule changes.
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What the US government will allow to be exported is not "strong >encryption." It is encryption only slightly too strong to be broken >by an amateur effort. For the right investment in custom hardware, it >falls quickly. (500,000 $US = 3.5 hour avg break). > Considering Ian's feat you certainly seem to have had your crystal ball in hand. --Steve

2 1

Re: Free & Open Society & toleration (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Nobody has a problem with your ideals, it's just that Jim Bell is > trying to say (correct me and forgive me if I'm wrong) that: > > 1. Society will never subscribe to your ideals. But other than two points they already do. The two points being, 1. Libel is a recognized legal concept now, the difference is one of degree. That degree of difference being how much money there is available for the lawyer and their willingness to enforce the concepts of justice in the society based upon their perceived ability to profit by it. 2. The extension of acceptance of reasonable legal representation by lot from not only the defence but also the prosecution. My solutions to these two issues are: 1. Removal of the lawyer from the ultimate choice of whether the case should be pursued. 2. The minimalization of the defendants and plaintiffs monetary resources by removing them from the legal system by choosing the legal representation of both parties by lot. 3. By moving the responsibility of police to provide evidence from the prosecution to the court we equalize the impact of irregularities in evidence selection as well as minimizing the sorts of evidence disputes which so impact some trials (ie OJ Simpson). 4. By the implimentation of a bond proviso on the part of the plaintiff the system provides a check and balance reducing nuisance cases as well as reducing the taxation load on the citizenry. > 2. Society is not static, i.e., instead of remaining at a constant > level of corruption, the officials will keep demanding more, > until there's a sudden, catastrophic break. Absolutely, that is one of the reasons I refuse to seperate those who represent the social contract (eg the Constitution) and those who are impacted by it, which includes even those who represent it and enforce its various responsibilities. AP relies on this distinction as axiomatic. This axiomatic view is ultimately based in a jealous greed for what others have (ie power, percieved or real) and the implicit belief that all people are NOT created equal. > 3. The AP solution has the potential to stabilize the level of > corruption, which should make violent revolutions and genocide > unnecessary. But it doesn't. What it does is provide a mechanism for de-stabalization. Just look at the Middle East and the history of assassination. Assassinations have never stabalized that region or any other. There is nothging in our current understanding of human psychology and social interactions that leads to the conclusion that threats of violence will necessarily force people to comply. If it did the government (as perceived by AP) would not have to deal with real opposition. Simply threaten the opposition and it melts away for the same reason that supposedly the government would cease to oppose radicalism (ie changes in the status quo forced by small groups upon the masses). If anything every real world example of AP demonstrates an increase in corruption (eg. Beirut). The closest analog in history to AP is the "Flowery Wars" as practiced by the Aztecs. However, these were motivated by a belief in religous homogeneity and not one of politics. Also, implicit in this was the axiomatic acceptance of a real class seperation between those who ruled and those who were ruled. By no means could one accept the premise that this caused the Aztec rulers to be more sensitive to corruption or the continued existance of their system. Another good example is assassination in ancient Rome, it is clear that such activities in no way reduced corruption. If anything AP provides a rationale (ie self-defence) to impose even harsher a priori conditions on sections of a society by another part of that society. Hardly what I would consider a stabalizing condition let alone democratic. What is required for stability is for each group to feel unthreatened and secure in expressing their beliefs without fear of reprisals and at the same time recognizing they must provide room for others beliefs. There must also be the realization that refusal to abide by these precepts will be met with immediate consequences. Something AP can't do, as it explicitly promotes threats and the carrying out thereof. On another issue, it was asked what purpose there is in suing a poor person. Simple lack of monetary wealth should be no more reason to exempt a party from justice than having large quantities. A citizen should face the consequences of their actions, how rich or poor they are is an irrelevant issue. Concepts required for a true working democracy: Liberty Justice Equality Fraternity Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:02 PM 2/1/97 -0800, Toto wrote: >Phillip M Hallam-Baker wrote: >> The problem is that you are a crushing bore. You peddle your crackpot >> scheme long after it has been made plain nobody is interested. > > I also thing that the other list members involved in this thread are >'nobodies', but I was too polite to say anything. It's odd that you would say this. I get that impression ("nobodies") about practically EVERY subject discussed here. Why name this particular one, as if it were somehow special? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Keystroke sniffer question
by Scott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How can you detect if there is a keystroke sniffer on your computer. Is there a file name to look for? Where do people get them? ======================================= Scott Bellavance scott-b(a)ix.netcom.com http://www.netcom.com/~scott-b/homepage.html ======================================= -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzAu56UAAAEEAL8pOdPu2pw5E91f99ByJWT+O1smtcOlIr6GL9TdCbdZ6I2U UPLl7RL5cV4e3Wv4nIIZiOIePMAUouM5fQZib4vnGpCKM/WxfGQBRGafsq2mlzvE IKLBrdYhQ5STl/qZIaCKI2+V4hdsvTPaI0PCqGzGoiDv9gbbZ40Gi3F38KqtAAUR tCtTY290dCBSLiBCZWxsYXZhbmNlIDxzY290dC1iQGl4Lm5ldGNvbS5jb20+ =Hfbk -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1