December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[mccon@erim.org (Joe McConnell): Latest Headlines ]
by emv＠mail.msen.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+===========================================================================+ | Copyright 1994 by Wood-Charles Associates. All rights reserved. | | WCA News is available on the Msen Gopher. | | gopher://gopher.msen.com/11/vendor/wca | +===========================================================================+ HEADLINES FROM THE NATION'S NEWS COMPILED BY DISINFORMATION SYSTEMS EDITOR, FAIRLY N. COHERENT BATF JUMPS ON ENCRYPTION BANDWAGON WASHINGTON: THE BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, AND FIREARMS (THE ONLY FEDERAL AGENCY WHOSE NAME SOUNDS LIKE A SUPPLIES LIST FOR A HIGH SCHOOL PROM) IS GETTING INTO THE ENCRYPTION MANDATE GAME WITH ITS OWN VERSION OF A TAPPABLE-MESSAGE-MANGLER. BATF IS PUSHING FOR A DESIGN CALLED THE "WACO" CHIP WHICH WOULD ALLOW ATF AGENTS TO SMASH IN THE FRONT DOOR OF YOUR SYSTEM, ERASE ALL YOUR FILES, REFORMAT YOUR DRIVES, AND SEND ABUSIVE EMAIL TO YOUR CAT. THE ADMINISTRATION'S OFFICE OF CAVING IN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ISSUED A STATEMENT SUPPORTING THE PROGRAM. NEW INTERNET PUBLICATIONS ON SHELVES ANN ARBOR: THE OUTPOURING OF PUBLIC INTEREST IN CONNECTIVITY HAS, PREDICTABLY, RESULTED IN A SPATE OF INTERNET BOOKS. AS YOU MIGHT EXPECT, THE FIRST CROP WERE MOSTLY INTRODUCTORY AND AIMED AT GENERAL AUDIENCES. NOW, HOWEVER, THE TITLES ARE BECOMING MORE NICHE-ORIENTED, WITH THE FOLLOWING NEW VOLUMES HITTING THE STORES NOW. THE INTERNET GUIDE FOR CATS: INCLUDES CHAPTERS ON "HOW TO SEND ONE OF YOUR OWNERS MAIL DENYING THAT THE OTHER ONE HAS REMEMBERED TO FEED YOU," "WALLOWING AROUND ON THE KEYBOARD: THE ULTIMATE ENCRYPTION SYSTEM?" AND "HOW TO TELL IF SOMEONE ON THE INTERNET REALLY _IS_ A DOG." EVERYTHING THE GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THE INTERNET: A LANDMARK IN NICHE MARKETING -- A BOOK AIMED AT ONE INDIVIDUAL READER. FEATURES: "GET RICH FAST! 1001 SCHEMES FOR FUNDING YOUR SCHOOL SYSTEM," AND "EVEN ON THE INTERNET, EVERYONE CAN TELL YOU'RE A MORON." LOCAL FIRM OFFERS ELECTRONIC DECOR ANN ARBOR: "SO YOU GOT THIS INFO HIGHWAY THING. SO YOU GOT PEOPLE DRIVING BY ON IT. SO WHAT YOU NEED IS SOMETHING FOR 'EM TO LOOK AT." SO SAYS THE PRESIDENT OF ZASTRONICS, INC., MAKERS OF ELECTRONIC LAWN ORNAMENTS. THE ZASTRONICS LINE FEATURES LITTLE KISSING EECS UNDERGRADS, BIG CONCRETE PARENT PROCESSES WITH A WHOLE STRING OF LITTLE CHILD PROCESSES FOLLOWING THEM AROUND, AND A LINE OF COY, PLYWOOD HOME PAGE BUTTS. "ON THE INTERNET, NO ONE CAN TELL THAT YOU'VE EATEN A TEMPEH BURGER," SAID AN OLD TOWN WAITPERSONAGE WHO CHARACTERIZED HIS PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT AS "KIND OF A SEA SHELL CITY ON THE INFO SUPERHIGHWAY." -30- ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Cryptography banned in the Netherlands....
by mrs＠tinac.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote: > >But now the government is proposing a law that totally outlaws the use > >of encryption methods. > > >Any comments???? And hughes(a)ah.com (Eric Hughes) replied: > Yes. Find the coalition that has repeatedly prevented the imposition > of national identity cards, and educate them about cryptography. It's > much the same issue. Well, first of all, it seems that the identification requirement seems to have passed anyway. But it's not as strict as it was proposed. But you do have a point, it's the same issue, although I believe that completely banning the use of cryptography is an even bigger violation of civil rights than requiring the people that they should be able to show some ID at any time of the day. It's exactly the same coalition that argued against national identity cards that now just says that banning cryptography is not an interesting matter so they will not even join the debates. It looks like the biggest hope comes from the industry. Companies in the Netherlands really feel threatened by this ban on cryptography and I hope that they will be powerfull enough to stop this law. For once, the corporate lobby seems to be on the side of the people! Mike

2 1

Data on clipper phones
by koontzd＠lrcs.loral.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Subject: Another view of the CFP >From: Eric Blossom <eb(a)sr.hp.com> > >Wow, I'm pretty sure I have some 4100 data sheets I got ~9 months ago >that said the 4100 did not use clipper, but used some "proprietary" >algorithm. The 3600 sheets I rcvd at the same time did make reference >to clipper. I'll have to dig them out and check. > >> Security features >> >> - Clipper encryption algorithm - Display window for (sp) >> - Secure Access Control authentification identification >> System (SACS) - Information to create a call > >Anybody know what SACS is? > >Eric Blossom The data sheet is labeled 5/93. I received in in July 1993. I just called up a marketing guy at AT&T and asked. The 4100 is not available with clipper now, but should be available in late summer. It is unclear whether 4100s will be able to interoperate in clipper mode with other 4100s or just talk to 3600s in clipper mode. The clipper systems delivered to date are 3600s. The 4100 is currently available with one of two proprietary encryption algorithms, one for export. SACS is a screening mechanism to prevent you from going secure, except with expected callers. It also provides user and security level authentication. By definition, data transmission is not available on clipper phones now. From the FIPS Pub it is permissible (see the following). You'll have to wait to see if AT&T will produce a product that can this summer. The reason would not be that it is forbidden (its not), rather muddying of product definitions and competition between products. >From FIPS PUB 185: ... The SKIPJACK encryption/decryption algorithm has been approved for government applications requiring encryption of sensitive but unclassified data telecommunications as defined herein. The specific operations of the SKIPJACK algorithm and the LEAF creation method are classified and hence are referenced, but not specified, in this standard. Data for purposes of this standard includes voice, facsimile and computer information communicated in a telephone system. A telephone system for purposes of this standard is limited to a system which is circuit switched and operating at data rates of standard commercial modems over analog voice circuits or which uses basic-rate ISDN or a similar grade wireless service.

1 0

FW: Our Tax dollars at work! (NOT a sick joke)
by Ophir Ronen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- From: Setheni Davidson (CompuCom) Trust Congress? Not With This Unbelieveable Lair of Slop PC Computing, April 1994, page 88. By John C. Dvorak When Vice President Gore began talking about the Information Highway, we all knew the bureaucrats would get involved more than we might like. In fact, it may already be too late to stop a horrible Senate bill from becoming law. The moniker -- Information Highway -- itself seems to be responsible for SB #040194. Introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, it's designed to prohibit anyone from using a public computer network (Information Highway) while the computer user is intoxicated. I know how silly this sounds, but Congress apparently thinks that being drunk on a highway is bad no matter what kind of highway it is. The bill is expected to pass this month. There already are rampant arguments as to how this proposed law can possibly be enforced. The FBI hopes to use it as an excuse to do routine wiretaps on any computer if there is any evidence that the owner "uses or abuses alcohol and has access to a modem." Note how it slips in the word 'uses'. This means if you've been seen drinking one lone beer, you can have your line tapped. Because this law would be so difficult to enforce, police officials are drooling over the prospect of easily obtaining permits to do wiretaps. Ask enforcement officials in Washington and they'll tell you the proposed law is idiotic, but none will oppose it. Check the classified ads in the "Washington Post" and you'll find the FBI, National Security Agency, and something called the Online Enforcement Agency (when did they set that up?) all soliciting experts in phone technology, specifically wiretapping. It gets worse. The Congressional Record of February 19, 1994, has a report that outlines the use of computerized BBSes, Internet, Inter-Relay Chat, and CompuServe CB as "propagating illicit sexual encounters and meetings between couples -- any of whom are underage... Even people purporting to routinely have sex with animals are present on these systems to foster their odd beliefs on the public-at-large." A rider on SB #040194 makes it a felony to discuss sexual matters on any public-access network, including the Internet, America Online, and CompuServe. I wondered how private companies such as America Online can be considered public-access networks, so I called Senator Barbara Boxer's office and talked to an aide, a woman named Felicia. She said the use of promotional cards that give away a free hour or two of service constitues public access. You know, like the ones found in the back of books or in modem boxes. She also told me most BBS systems fall under this proposed statute. When asked how they propose to enforce this law, she said it's not Congress's problem. "Enforcement works itself out over time," she said. The group fighting this moronic law is led by Jerome Bernstein of the Washington law firm of Bernstein, Bernstein and Knowles (the firm that first took Ollie North as a client). I couldn't get in touch with any of the co-sponsors of the bill (including Senator Ted Kennedy, if you can believe it!), but Bernstein was glad to talk. "These people have no clue about the Information Highway or what it does. The whole thing got started last Christmas during an antidrinking campaign in the Washington D.C., metro area," Bernstein said, "I'm convinced someone jokingly told Leahy's office about drunk driving on the Information High and the idea snowballed. These senators actually think there is a physical highway. Seriously, Senator Pat Moynihan asked me if you needed a driving permit to 'drive' a modem on the Information Highway! He has no clue what a modem is, and neither does the rest of Congress." According to Bernstein, the antisexual wording in the bill was attributed to Kennedy's office. "Kennedy thought that technology was leaving him behind, and he wanted to be perceived as more up-to-date technologically. He also though this would make amends for his alleged philandering." Unfortunately, the public is not much better informed than the Senate. The Gallup Organization, at the behest of Congress, is polling the public regarding intoxication while using a computer and online "hot chatting." The results are chilling. More than half of the public thinks that using a computer while intoxicated should be illegal! The results of the sexuality poll are not available. But one question, "Should a teenage boy be encouraged to pretend he is a girl while chatting with another person online?" has civil rights activists alarmed. According to Kevin Avril of the ACLU, "This activity doesn't even qualify as virtual cross-dressing. Who cares about this stuff? What are we going to do? Legislate an anti-boys-will-be-boys law? It sets a bad precedent." I could go on and on with quotes and complaints from people regarding this bill. But most of the complaints are getting nowhere. Pressure groups, such as one led by Baptist ministers from De Kalb County, Georgia, are supporting the law with such vehemence that they've managed to derail an effort by modem manufacturers (the biggest being Georgia-based Hayes) to lobby against the law. "Who wants to come out and support drunkenness and computer sex?" asked a congressman who requested anonymity. So, except for Bernstein, Bernstein, and Knowles, and a few members of the ACLU, there is nothing to stop this bill from becoming law. You can register your protests with your congressperson or Ms. Lirpa Sloof in the Senate Legislative Analysts Office. Her name spelled backward says it all.

3 2

RE: Our Tax dollars at work! (NOT a sick joke)
by Jeff Gross 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Get real! Lirpa Sloof spelled backwards is April Fools. You're right, it's not a sick joke, it's an April Fools joke. ---------- > From: Ophir Ronen (Rho) > To: Eric Geyser (Computer People); cypherpunks(a)toad.com; Jeff Gross; Ofer Bar; > Greg Malinski (Apex PC Solutions) > Subject: FW: Our Tax dollars at work! (NOT a sick joke) > Date: Thursday, March 31, 1994 1:56PM > > > > > ---------- > From: Setheni Davidson (CompuCom) > > Trust Congress? Not With This Unbelieveable Lair of Slop > PC Computing, April 1994, page 88. > By John C. Dvorak > > When Vice President Gore began talking about the Information Highway, we > all knew the bureaucrats would get involved more than we might like. In > fact, it may already be too late to stop a horrible Senate bill from > becoming law. > > The moniker -- Information Highway -- itself seems to be responsible for SB > #040194. Introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, it's designed to prohibit > anyone from using a public computer network (Information Highway) while the > computer user is intoxicated. I know how silly this sounds, but Congress > apparently thinks that being drunk on a highway is bad no matter what kind > of highway it is. The bill is expected to pass this month. > > There already are rampant arguments as to how this proposed law can > possibly be enforced. The FBI hopes to use it as an excuse to do routine > wiretaps on any computer if there is any evidence that the owner "uses or > abuses alcohol and has access to a modem." Note how it slips in the word > 'uses'. This means if you've been seen drinking one lone beer, you can have > your line tapped. > > Because this law would be so difficult to enforce, police officials are > drooling over the prospect of easily obtaining permits to do wiretaps. Ask > enforcement officials in Washington and they'll tell you the proposed law is > idiotic, but none will oppose it. Check the classified ads in the > "Washington Post" and you'll find the FBI, National Security Agency, and > something called the Online Enforcement Agency (when did they set that up?) > all soliciting experts in phone technology, specifically wiretapping. > > It gets worse. The Congressional Record of February 19, 1994, has a report > that outlines the use of computerized BBSes, Internet, Inter-Relay Chat, and > CompuServe CB as "propagating illicit sexual encounters and meetings > between couples -- any of whom are underage... Even people purporting to > routinely have sex with animals are present on these systems to foster their > odd beliefs on the public-at-large." A rider on SB #040194 makes it a felony > to discuss sexual matters on any public-access network, including the > Internet, America Online, and CompuServe. > > I wondered how private companies such as America Online can be considered > public-access networks, so I called Senator Barbara Boxer's office and > talked to an aide, a woman named Felicia. She said the use of promotional > cards that give away a free hour or two of service constitues public access. > You know, like the ones found in the back of books or in modem boxes. She > also told me most BBS systems fall under this proposed statute. When asked > how they propose to enforce this law, she said it's not Congress's problem. > "Enforcement works itself out over time," she said. > > The group fighting this moronic law is led by Jerome Bernstein of the > Washington law firm of Bernstein, Bernstein and Knowles (the firm that > first took Ollie North as a client). I couldn't get in touch with any > of the co-sponsors of the bill (including Senator Ted Kennedy, if you > can believe it!), but Bernstein was glad to talk. "These people have no > clue about the Information Highway or what it does. The whole thing got > started last Christmas during an antidrinking campaign in the Washington > D.C., metro area," Bernstein said, "I'm convinced someone jokingly told > Leahy's office about drunk driving on the Information High and the idea > snowballed. These senators actually think there is a physical highway. > Seriously, Senator Pat Moynihan asked me if you needed a driving permit > to 'drive' a modem on the Information Highway! He has no clue what a > modem is, and neither does the rest of Congress." > > According to Bernstein, the antisexual wording in the bill was attributed > to Kennedy's office. "Kennedy thought that technology was leaving him > behind, and he wanted to be perceived as more up-to-date technologically. > He also though this would make amends for his alleged philandering." > > Unfortunately, the public is not much better informed than the Senate. > The Gallup Organization, at the behest of Congress, is polling the > public regarding intoxication while using a computer and online "hot > chatting." The results are chilling. More than half of the public thinks > that using a computer while intoxicated should be illegal! The results > of the sexuality poll are not available. But one question, "Should a > teenage boy be encouraged to pretend he is a girl while chatting with > another person online?" has civil rights activists alarmed. According > to Kevin Avril of the ACLU, "This activity doesn't even qualify as > virtual cross-dressing. Who cares about this stuff? What are we going > to do? Legislate an anti-boys-will-be-boys law? It sets a bad > precedent." > > I could go on and on with quotes and complaints from people regarding > this bill. But most of the complaints are getting nowhere. Pressure > groups, such as one led by Baptist ministers from De Kalb County, > Georgia, are supporting the law with such vehemence that they've managed > to derail an effort by modem manufacturers (the biggest being > Georgia-based Hayes) to lobby against the law. "Who wants to come out > and support drunkenness and computer sex?" asked a congressman who > requested anonymity. > > So, except for Bernstein, Bernstein, and Knowles, and a few members of > the ACLU, there is nothing to stop this bill from becoming law. You can > register your protests with your congressperson or Ms. Lirpa Sloof in > the Senate Legislative Analysts Office. Her name spelled backward says > it all. > > >

1 0

Re: The President's Analyst
by Jef Poskanzer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Indeed, President's Analyst was an instant classic and ahead of its time. The tpc.org domain is a reference to it. See .sigquote below for another prescient James Coburn meme. --- Jef Jef Poskanzer jef(a)netcom.com jef(a)well.sf.ca.us "An *actor* as President??" -- In Like Flint, 1967

1 0

RE: Our Tax dollars at work! (NOT a sick joke)
by gtoal＠an-teallach.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:Get real! Lirpa Sloof spelled backwards is April Fools. You're right, :it's not a sick joke, it's an April Fools joke. :> Trust Congress? Not With This Unbelieveable Lair of Slop |||||||||||| :> The moniker -- Information Highway -- itself seems to be responsible for SB :> #040194. Introduced by Senator Patrick Leahy, it's designed to prohibit ||||||| :> to Kevin Avril of the ACLU, "This activity doesn't even qualify as ||||| :> register your protests with your congressperson or Ms. Lirpa Sloof in ||||||||||| Gosh, we're slow today kids... G

3 2

Update to finger keyserver at wasabi.io.com
by pgpkeys＠wasabi.io.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Following suggestions on the net, the wasabi.io.com keyserver has been upgraded to allow arbitrary comments to be attached to public keys in the archive. This is primarily for the benefit of people who lost their master keyring and had not prepared a revocation certificate in advance. For an example of how this might be used, try finger 0x445051(a)wasabi.io.com finger 0xbdfe4d(a)wasabi.io.com As you see, the key is still returned. It is up to you to read the attached comments and to decide not to use the key. This solution to the lost key problem was chosen in order to prevent a denial of service attack on the keyservers. Anyone who wishes their key to be revoked in this way, please post publicly to alt.security.pgp The Mgt.

1 0

Re: Quantum Physics
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So, Jim, I figured the whole thing out and just had to share with you the fact that apparently, This doesn't have anything to do with That Here doesn't have anything to do with There and neither does These with Those I think it's a Principle of some kind. :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) :>) Blanc

1 0

Re: Collapse of the Wave Function Predicted, Timing Uncertain
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> - Writing software while on drugs, apparently a longstanding practice > amongst some segments of the hacker community, is banned. As Professor > Denning puts it: "Drugs and code don't mix. This is what got us into > this whole crypto mess in the first place." Wait - they're not including *caffeine* are they? No way! It's a Commie Plot to decaffeinate our Precious Bodily Fluids, and down-right Un-American! (Or un-Colombian, or un-something!) Mr. Coffee

1 0