December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

HP announcing some International Cryptography stuff on Monday
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are they the next Big Company to knuckle under to the Feds? Their pcmcia-with-local-country-surveillance-chip-socket initiative never seemed to go anywhere. PALO ALTO, Calif.(BUSINESS WIRE)Nov. 15, 1996 Hewlett-Packard Company today announced that Lewis E. Platt, HP chairman, president and chief executive officer, will host a press and analyst event on Monday, Nov. 18, that will showcase the fact that a significant barrier to conducting secured business transactions and communications over the Internet has been cleared. Expected to join Platt at the International Cryptography Framework announcement are Brad Silverberg, senior vice president of Microsoft(R)'s Internet Platform and Tools Division, and Ron Smith, senior vice president and general manager of Intel's Semiconductor Products Group. The event will be held at 9:30 a.m. (registration at 9:00 a.m.) in the White and Murrow Rooms of the National Press Club, 529 14th Street N.W., Washington. Members of the press and analysts should contact HP's Lisa Arruiza-DeLeon at 408/447-5331 to register for an event that will showcase an approach to solving the data security and integrity issues that have impaired and frightened users and companies from exploiting the full power of the Internet.

1 0

RE: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by James A. Tunnicliffe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Aga wrote: > > >Why? Are you a criminal? > > >What are you hiding behind your PGP? > > > > Okay, I'll bite. Where is it said that a person who wants h[is,er] > > privacy > > is a criminal? Charlie McCarthy might have said that. [...deletia...] > The more you PGP, the worse you look. Nobody reads your e-mail, > so stop being so paranoid. > > -aga Sigh. I really don't have time for unimaginative trollers, and you've caught your limit, so into the killfile you go. Still, I would appreciate it if you could see your way clear to quit posting these trolls on cypherpunks, since it does make it harder to effectively filter the responses from people who make the mistake of taking you seriously. Thank you for your kind consideration, Tunny ====================================================================== James A. Tunnicliffe | WWWeb: http://www.inference.com/~tunny Inference Corporation | PGP Fingerprint: CA 23 E2 F3 AC 2D 0C 77 tunny(a)Inference.com | 36 07 D9 33 3D 32 53 9C ====================================================================== begin 600 WINMAIL.DAT M>)\^(AH4`0:0" `$```````!``$``0>0!@`(````Y 0```````#H``$(@ <` M& ```$E032Y-:6-R;W-O9G0@36%I;"Y.;W1E`#$(`06 `P`.````S <+``\` M# `/`!<`!0`D`0$@@ ,`#@```,P'"P`/``P`#P`8``4`)0$!"8 !`"$````Q M.45"-#DQ148T,T1$,#$Q.3,P0S P04$P,$$U1C8P1 `B!P$-@ 0``@````(` M`@`!!( !`$ ```!213H@6U)%0E545$%,72!#96YS;W)S:&EP(&]N(&-Y<&AE M<G!U;FMS/RP@9G)O;2!4:&4@3F5T;'D@3F5W<R `K!4!`Y &`/0&```:```` M`P`F```````#`#8``````!X`< `!````/ ```%M214)55%1!3%T@0V5N<V]R M<VAI<"!O;B!C>7!H97)P=6YK<S\L(&9R;VT@5&AE($YE=&QY($YE=W,@``(! M<0`!````&P````&[TRS")QY)ZGT]]!'0DPP`J@"E]@T``&Y*9P`#`"X````` M``,`!A"T5Q>Q`P`'$$<#```>``@0`0```&4```!!1T%74D]413I72%D_05)% M64]504-224U)3D%,/U=(051!4D593U5(241)3D="14A)3D193U524$=0/T]+ M05DL24Q,0DE415=(15)%25-)5%-!24142$%405!%4E-/3E=(3U=!``````,` M$! ``````P`1$ `````"`0D0`0```+\#``"[`P``(@8``$Q:1G6BU5!"_P`* M`0\"%0*D`^0%ZP*#`% 3`U0"`&-H"L!S973N,@8`!L,"@S(#Q@<3`H,&,P1& M`@!P<G$Q()<(50>R`H,T$P]F-0/%0Q2S$B)S=&5M`H!]%PJ ",\)V3L9GS(U M-0\"@ J!#;$+8&YG,3 ^,Q0@"PH4(0OQ$W!G8:P@=P-@&' Z"H4^'T(@5VAY M/R 3<64@VGD(8" >8 4!;0N !T Z/Q[L805 "L @)&AI0F0+@&<@8F4BP&[& M9" R!<!01U A*A[I`$]K87DL($DGTFP#(&)I&' N'^ ?H-\$D" @! `G``5 M<PMP(X#2="(#(' $D',"(!YP+&AO'G `<'0$(&A;-00`+ 2071[I%-!I=KT` MT'D>Z2<1((D?X$,1P69L") %T&-#"L GP'FR("#09V@%0!' =B @S2=W+@J% M"H5;+B_@#;"^;!(`!S OX2FV'N=4)L!_+9 %L" D(_$ET"? ("!W3P6P$? @ M,QDP;VLF@4Z:;P;@9"V &:!A9 0(a)V2.C92T`P ,0+![G*&#Q)V!T;W C(2+R M-E$*L2T`<&\BT"[F/A[G+6';'E N_%,ML2: 2322)A!U+8!D`B G+>4P4 > M(-L"$ 7 =0,``,!G(.$P4+\[D@-@)A H0270`'!D"H7%($$G+B%C874MPB.C M^RS0(-!T)= V40N -I RTS)K`Q!L9@,0("1G;WTF@%,P4"80)=$*A3,@=?)L M(X!A<!30!9 ',!AP_R<R!I @,P6@0O(1\" C0K&?); @D# P"L% 87%U)E#Y M"H5P;QA@(O(RX3-1/3-7!" H<2K <";!<#Q0:_,]H0"0;F-#PSL0!Y$`P/YK M0\,1P02!"H5 80W!!9!_/.(ZX4$1&'!%\3'1&:!S_T;P`( 'D0-2*"$VH$$Q M***_2B,RX0J%(- 88$HR;T0@OT_1(O(@0A'P!1 (8',ZX/<N[3' `'!K(#,\ M$B.C4''_(X %H "!!($\T0(@-;92%O4\4&XJUCU6CU>?6*]9OZ(]"H4@2F$' M@D$F@#U5PFE%L :02\ ?X"!\8R:@7/!E8CHBL ) <- Z+R]W7= N"X!+P L9 MH$EA+@6@;2]^=/]5V27@7B85$4C !;!4@URR^2/Q($8B\4BQ!1 ",%U @2QQ M02 R,R!%$B 21F+004-BL$0@,-EC8#<W6N9?`T!?UUZB3URA7,%F#Q_@,S9C MH#=8($0Y9S!BT#-CD#/E$B U8M Y0U8?:;]JSR]KWUI>+OP8P0!O$ ! `#D` M0&7"NS'3NP$#`/$_"00```(!1P`!````,0```&,]55,[83T@.W ]26YF97)E M;F-E.VP]3$%.1%)5+3DV,3$Q-3(P,34R,UHM-30Q.0`````"`?D_`0```$H` M````````W*= R,!"$!JTN0@`*R_A@@$`````````+T\]24Y&15)%3D-%+T]5 M/4Y/5D%43R]#3CU214-)4$E%3E13+T-./5153DY9````'@#X/P$````5```` M2F%M97,@02X@5'5N;FEC;&EF9F4``````@'[/P$```!*`````````-RG0,C M0A :M+D(`"LOX8(!`````````"]//4E.1D5214Y#12]/53U.3U9!5$\O0TX] M4D5#25!)14Y44R]#3CU454Y.60```!X`^C\!````%0```$IA;65S($$N(%1U M;FYI8VQI9F9E`````$ `!S 0RY$3,=.[`4 `"#!P10V\,=.[`0,`#33]/P`` M`@$4- $````0````5)2AP"E_$!NEAP(a)`*RHE%QX`/0`!````!0```%)%.B ` M````"P`I```````+`",```````(!?P`!````4 ```#QC/553)6$]7R5P/4EN M9F5R96YC925L/4Q!3D1252TY-C$Q,34R,#$U,C-:+34T,3E ;&%N9')U+FYO 7=F%T;RYI;F9E<F5N8V4R+F-O;3X``P(R ` end

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: > > Symbolically, he punched holes in his ideology. That's my > > opinion. > Note that this is only true if John's ideology in the first place > was what you think it was. Excellent point. In point of fact, even if John Gilmore explained his ideology to me, I would *still* only have an ideology that was what I thought it was. There is no chance that I can get John Gilmore's exact ideology in my mind since our minds work differently. > He may have "punched holes" in the conception of John's ideology > that you'd formed in your own mind, of course. Yes, that is the case. Of course, my conception of "free speech" is unique. I see no difference between a government, a group of network administrators, or a panel of judges when it comes to censorship. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet The King decided to force his subjects to tell the truth. Nasrudin was first in line. They asked him, "Where are you going? Tell the truth or be hanged" "I am going," said Nasrudin, "to be hanged on that gallows." "I don't believe you." "Very well, if I have told a lie, then hang me!" "But that would make it the truth!" "Exactly," said Nasrudin, "your truth."

1 0

A New Crypto Announcement--Could be Ominous
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(My traffic from the Cypherpunks list comes in bursts interspersed by long gaps, so I don't know if this has been reported. It seems significant to me.) A few excerpts: H-P ( Hewlett-Packard Co ) says RSA Data ( Security Dynamics Technologies Inc ) in codes deal PALO ALTO, Calif., Nov 15 (Reuter) - Hewlett-Packard Co. said Security Dynamics Technologies Inc's RSA Data Security Inc electronic encryption company is involved in its planned announcement Monday of new advance in encryption technology. Hewlett-Packard said technology the company's Chairman and Chief Executive Lewis Platt is due to detail at the National Press Club on Monday aims to resolve this roadblock in the use of electronic commerce over the Internet. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[emphasis added by Tim] Hewlett-Packard officials declined to give precise details, but said the technology has already received backing from the U.S. government and other ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ governments which it did not name, as well as major industry players. Senior executives of Microsoft Corp and Intel Corp are among those scheduled to make presentations on Monday, Hewlett-Packard said, but it declined to identify other companies whose technologies will be involved. ----end of item--- It sounds ominous to me. Another backroom deal, probably for some form of key recovery strategy, aka GAK. --Tim May, awaiting Monday's announcement with trepidation "The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." [NYT, 1996-10-02] We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

5 6

Re: It is getting easier
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:25 PM 11/14/96 -0800, Lucky Green wrote: >If I remember correctly, some of the newer transponders used on >commercial aircraft actually transmit GPS data back to the controller in >real time. I wonder how long it will be before the FAA will include such >information in their database. I don't think new transponders make much difference. The old ones heighten the radar image of the airplane which gives an accurate 2D position. This position is automatically entered into the FAA computer which maintains the ATC controller's display. In the old style, altitude is determined by an altimeter on the airplane which encoded into the transponder signal. If newer transponders are returning GPS signals, the position may be more accurate (but probably not unless they can decode the selective availability signal). (OBCrypto for those who care.) >"To obtain the position of any passenger flight in the US within 10 >meters, click here." In either case, the Passenger Name Records for the flight are in the airlines databases (and have been there for many years), and the airplane's physical position is in the FAA's computer (and has been for many years). The ability to find the current position of an airplane, or a passenger remains dependent on the incentives and disincentives for database linking and application development. There are no insurmountable technical problems. The technical problems are those of getting old-technology software to do something new. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The lottery is a tax on | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | those who can't do math. | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | - Who 1st said this? | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

aga <aga(a)dhp.com> wrote: >Let's stay on topic here -- John Gilmore is a censorous asshole >for pulling Vulis's plug. The topic has nothing to do with >the Freedom-Knights. At 12:19 AM 11/15/96 -0600, snow wrote: >> [This is a rebuttal to a misguided news article.] >> > Cypher-Censored >> > By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) >> > The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with >> > it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can >> > shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a >> > list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no >> > government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And >> > the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing >> > list with different rules. >> >> Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization >> begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. >> Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you >> don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice >> how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain >> American patriotic organizations?) > > It still isn't censorship. Censorship, at least in my dictionary, >refers to censor, which uses the word "Official" several times. Mr. >Gilmore is not an "Official" in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF >sense, but this is not an "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. Even more important is the fact that Mr. Gilmore did not prevent Mr. Vulis from speaking. No restraint on speech implies no censorship. Therefor Mr. Vulis was not censored. Q.E.D. You all are perfectly free to like or not like what Mr. Gilmore did. However, don't call it censorship because it wasn't. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The lottery is a tax on | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | those who can't do math. | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | - Who 1st said this? | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

3 2

Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:44 PM 11/13/96 +0000, Adam Back wrote: >A very good idea. There was some discussion of this kind of thing a >while back about doing this for Singapore. The suggestion at the time >was not to do it perfectly, but rather to arrange something simple to >allow people to circumvent the censorship enforced through their >compulsory use of a government censored web proxy. I hope it is ready. To quote from William Safire's 11/14/96 NYT column: "Let's run a test. "Information Technology and Political Control in Singapore" is a paper just issued by Prof. Gary Rodan of Murdoch University in Perth, Australia, distribued by Chalmers Johnson of the Japan Policy Research Institute in Cardiff, Calif. It's on this web site: http://www.nmjc.ord/jpri/. "If Lee blocks access, Singaporeans, try E-mail: cjohnson(a)ucsd.edu. But be careful, global business executives: the Architect of the New Century [Lee Kuan Yew - wsf] may be monitoring everything you download." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The lottery is a tax on | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | those who can't do math. | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | - Who 1st said this? | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Umm, even if we accept Dave's claim that Gilmore pinched holes in > his ideology, these holes are no bigger than Dave Hayes's own holes, > since he exercises censorship of Freedom Fighters mailing list. Firstly, there is no "Freedom Fighters" mailing list. I have done nothing Gilmore didn't do. People can still send their missives to freedom-knights without being subscribed. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet A person being delivered from the danger of a fierce lion does not object whether this service is performed by unknown or illustrious individuals. Why, therefore, do people seek knowledge from celebrities?

1 0

Media seekers, reputation and banishment
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> A community offers few punishments for asocial behavior. Killfiles > are partly effective. But the strongest punishment is banishment. The "community" didn't decide anything. John Gilmore did. His machine, his mailing list, his decision, and his responsibility. > The issue is "do we individually banish asocial louts or > collectively?" and of course how do we decide who to banish. Collectively => ban for people who don't want to ban the person. > All of this is certainly easier when done individually yet it is > often prudent and effective to have someone take action when they > are in a position to do be effective. Gilmore acted properly in my > opinion. And DV remains in my killfile. If you still need a killfile, Gilmore wasn't very effective, was he?

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> So you are explaining your problems in advance. Good, it tells > thoughtful readers to take you with a grain of salt. What a wonderfully self-referential statement. That's exactly what this statement does for you... > > In person-to-person interaction, one's only real defense against what > > one decides to call "unwanted" is to remove oneself from the arena of > > interaction. It may not be possible to ignore or run away from certain > > sources of input. > You forget "shutting down" the source of input. Turning off the > radio, TV etc, or turning off the person speaking. If people have difficulty ignoring those on a mailing list or newsgroup that they do not like, how can you expect them to know about this herculean feat of responsibility? > > > The list is on Gilmore's machine and he can do what he wants with > > > it; he can moderate the postings, he can censor material, he can > > > shut the whole thing down. By kicking off an offending user, a > > > list owner merely exercises his property right. There's no > > > government involvement, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. And > > > the deleted, disgruntled user is free to start his own mailing > > > list with different rules. > > Notice how, once the opposition is admitted to, the rationalization > > begins. Suddenly this is not a matter of censorship, but of ownership. > > Just as suddenly, the classic anti-free-speech arguments of "if you > > don't like it, start yer own" begin to surface. (Anyone ever notice > > how this resembles the "love it or leave it" mentality of certain > > American patriotic organizations?) > It still isn't censorship. Call it what you will. In my eyes, here is someone who is attempting (ineffectually, which is perhaps deliberate) to stop messages from being sent to another human which used to be sent to that other human. Censorship? Ownership? Why does ownership justify dishonor? > Censorship, at least in my dictionary, refers to censor, which uses > the word "Official" several times. Mr. Gilmore is not an "Official" > in a government sense, he maybe in the EFF sense, but this is not an > "Official" EFF organ, so that doesn't count. But he is an official of the list. Censorship is not just practiced by governments... > "Editorial Control" means that someone decides who get's published and > who doesn't. From your opposition to it, I guess you think that a magazine > dedicated to poetry should print all poems submitted, or as many, selected > in some sort of non-judgemental order, as they can fit. Or that a magazine > should print any writings submitted to it. Resistance to lack of editorial control prevents one from seeing the true nature of ideologies and opinions. Maybe you don't want this, but why deny it to others? Still... > I run 4 mailing lists, one is personal, one is in the process of coming > online, and 2 are up and running. One of these has a rule: No Politics allowed. > I guess I am a pathetic little censorous worm huh? If that is what you wish to call yourself. I maintain no such position. > That is what freedom is, the ability to _do it yourself_ not the > requirement that others do it for you, or allow you to use what they > have already built. Freedom is anything but categorizable in the terms you are using. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this.

1 0