December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: crypto cd once more
by Alan Olsen 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

At 03:23 PM 10/8/96 +0100, JR(a)ROCK.CNB.UAM.ES wrote: >>1) is there a system that can handle unix, windows and mac filenames >> > Yes. Use Rock Ridge extensions. That will allow for long UNIX >names. If you couple it with ISO9660 youget both worlds. Windows 95 will read rockridge discs, but will not display the long filenames. (Why they have not added those extensions to MSCDEX on Win95 is a mystery. Maybe Bill Gates had a bad experience at a showing of "Blazing Saddles".) --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

pgp, edi, s/mime
by Jeff Ubois 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Interesting comments from a member of the IETF EDI-INT group, which is developing standards for secure EDI over the net, and managing a Commercenet pilot project: - S/MIME and PGP are the two leading candidates for encrypting EDI messages, S/MIME inside the US, and PGP outside the US where S/MIME is unavailable. - If PGP 3.0 comes out on time with promised features, it could gain adoption by large companies as a standard means of encrypting EDI messages; that would pull smaller companies along, but it has a narrow window of opportunity and could lose to S/MIME products like those from Deming. - The G7 governments will impose key escrow on large companies trading over the net, and while non-escrowed systems will continue to be available, they are likely to be illegal, and certainly will be marginalized.

1 0

Government Denial of Service Attacks
by Duncan Frissell 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Those who read this list or watch the news of the "Wired Curtain" that is attempting to be drawn across the Net know that there is a theory out there that government Denial of Service Attacks (GDOS) are a real threat. The GDOS theory holds that if government legislates or even threatens litigation against the provision of a particular service, the providers of the service will fold and the public will be unable to obtain the banned service. In the case of the net this is the "Do Not <--'Enter" theory. The governments claim that by threat, deception, or nuclear weapons, they can keep millions of us from hitting the <--'Enter key and thus transmitting banned material. That is a very fine control regime indeed. (Original meaning of 'fine' of course.) If the governments had this GDOS power; this Do Not <--'Enter power, then the article on the front page of today's New York Times could not have been written. "Behind a Suburban Facade in Queens, A Teeming, Angry Urban Arithmetic" is the annual NYT article on the spread of illegal apartments throughout the Region. From the humblest urban ghetto to the swankiest suburbs, denizens of the TriState area are converting one- and two-family dwellings into two- three- or four-family (and denser) dwellings. These illegal apartments are commonplace and illegal. This has been true (and written about) for years. Here we have a physical service (apartment rental), difficult to hide, and illegal which is offered by hundreds of thousands of property owners in this area. The GDOS theory holds that this can't happen. "All they have to do is pass a law." Note that the GDOS theories that involve our activities say that once the government passes a law, no one (or hardly anyone) will offer an anonymous Net account, or an uncensored ISP connection, or an un IDed financial account, or an uncensored news server, etc. That all government has to do is pass a law and all transactions will be carried out in rigid conformity to its dictates. I say nonsense. If the government can't keep thousands of property owners (with their physical property at risk) from offering it for rent illegally, in an "open, notorious, and continuous" manner; then they aren't going to be able to keep very many of us from hitting <--'Enter. DCF "During Fiscal 1996, the Government of the United States collected more taxes from the American people than any government had ever collected before in the history of mankind. During Fiscal 1997, the Government of the United States plans to collect more taxes from the American people than any government has ever collected before in the history of mankind. And still it's not enough."

3 2

Re: Seeking help on WordPerfect 6.1 cracks [Done, thanks]
by Rich Graves 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Got it, thanks for the offers of help. FYI, none of the currently available freeware will decrypt WP 6.1 files; the WPCRAK mentioned in the sci.crypt FAQ stops at 5.2. But AccessData was kind enough to decrypt one for free, and the others had the same password. - -rich -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMlqzB5NcNyVVy0jxAQE6WAH/Wg2NIeaZxdfbRi2tTgdeynMdqXfSm0E6 zhq9aBRdpQEtZSRY5jABH24pLlSd3OfugyhyNqD+qULy4XzIygm5Fw== =lMjI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Be careful where you put up
by Donald Weightman 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Apropos the thread about asset allocation and relocation to hedge political risk, today's FINANCIAL TIMES reports: >Offshore banking centres agree to greater scrutiny > > Tuesday October 8 1996 > > By George Graham, Banking Correspondent > > Banking supervisors from large offshore financial centres have agreed to > co-operate more with their counterparts in industrialised nations in > investigating irregular behaviour at banks under their control. <SNIP> > The drafting involved hard negotiations on issues such as when a > supervisor could ask for the identity of an individual depositor or investor. > A supervisor in Europe may, for example, want to know that a bank is not > dependent for all its deposits on one source, but the offshore centre does > not want that to serve as an excuse for trawling for tax evaders. > > In all 140 countries have endorsed the deal, which sets out procedures for > exchanging information between supervisors and also establishes a > checklist to ensure that banking operations in a particular country are > subject to effective supervision. > > The agreement says home supervisors should be able to inspect the books > of shell branches wherever they are kept. "In no case should access to > these books be protected by secrecy requirements in the country that > licenses the shell branch," it says. Don Weightman dweightman(a)radix.net

1 0

Re: FC97: Anguilla, Anyone?
by Will Rodger 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

Yup - I did get the July blurb - of you do send me one, make sure it's updated. Will

1 0

Re: [Noise] Re: Missionaries (was: "Mormon Asshole?" re: GAK)
by camcc＠abraxis.com 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

At 01:04 AM 10/9/96 -0700, you [Paul S. Penrod] wrote: : :I suggest you [Alan Olsen] RTFM again. It was a commentary on the sad state of :scientific practice as germain to today's egomanical pirannah who inhabit :the domain of the "scientist". To publish is to exist, and the first rule :is "draw your curves, then plot your points." The second is "Thou shalt :not critisize your mentor." : :Save the anti-religion rhetoric for someone who gives a damn. : :...Paul Well, Paul, obviously you do. Otherwise why try to justify some thinly disguised pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo as "a commentary on the sad state of scientific practice." As Alan said, "I suggest you take your beliefs to talk.origins." BTW, what DOES this have to do with crypto, or privacy, or personal freedoms, or MORMONS for that matter? Alec

5 4

(fwd) Big Brother vs. Cypherpunks
by apteryx＠super.zippo.com 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Mon, 07 Oct 1996 17:13:11 -0400, John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> wrote > Time, October 14, 1996, p. 78. > > The Netly News > > Joshua Quittner > > Big Brother vs. Cypherpunks [snip] > Are they right? It's hard to know whom to believe in this > cloak-and-dagger debate. Civil libertarians tend to gloss > over the fact that the world is full of bad people with > crimes to hide. The software industry -- which makes 48% > of its profit overseas -- is clearly less concerned with > privacy than with losing foreign sales. And it may be no > accident that the Administration chose to start making > concessions the same week an influential software CEO -- > Netscape's Jim Barksdale -- excoriated Clinton's > cryptopolicy and endorsed Bob Dole. Oh my, you mean diffferent sides of a controverial topic are saying different things? What's a po reporter to do? > The issue is too complex -- and too important -- for > political gamesmanship. It will never get sorted out > until somebody starts playing it straight. Translation: I'm a lazy journalist who considers any controversy that requires more than just asking the two sides about it as too complicated to understand, and my editor wants me to dumb everything down anyway. I guess it is hard to turn a large number of mathematical, technical, legal and philosophical issues into no more than 3-syllable words, 15 word sentences, 5 line paragraphs filling 1 column of a magazine. Maybe this reporter should have viewed the article on lattice crypto in The Economist a couple of months back It's not impossible to explain the basic issues at stake if you are willing to do some research and not insult the intelligence of your audience. Of course, Time would be unlikely to print such an article that precludes the semi-literate from understanding it. Besides which, I'm sure that there is something *important* happening to Brad Pitt or Julia Roberts that needs to be covered first. Mark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMlq+X936bir1/qfZAQEDcwMAwwm1PPpICSK15YT/m6Cu1ldDeCZGG2VC 7MaJZdBbuoUkwR/6k4LsuDwqFl6c2jIEJbup88cH/yLsztDUvenGpetNgAiByCoN gYg/xgn5edTOu4eKb+ufh/yoZbf/cXOL =z31E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Mark Heaney finger snipe(a)starburst.cbl.cees.edu for public key PGP Fingerprint= BB D8 9B 07 51 87 05 AC 47 7B F2 4F A6 AB 1A CD ----------------------------------------------------------------- Vote against government *** Vote Libertarian

1 0

Re: yellow journalism and Encryption
by jim bell 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

At 08:57 AM 10/8/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Vinnie may think this is "asswipe journalism," but I think it's one of the >more interesting and revealing articles we've seen. In fact, it's a pretty >good summary of the history of wiretaps, the tension between privacy and >surveillance, and the thinking of those pushing for GAK/Key Recovery. I too was mystified about his reaction to this article. We certainly don't see articles as appropriate as it every day. >At 11:12 PM -0700 10/7/96, Vinnie Moscaritolo wrote: >>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/examiner/article.cgi?year=1996&month=10&day= 06&ar >>t >>Encryption controversy pits life against liberty >>TOM ABATE >>EXAMINER COLUMNIST >... >>"Wiretapping is the main issue," said Stewart Baker, former general counsel >>of the National Security Agency, the CIA's code-breaking and eavesdroping >>cousin. [snip] >>Having access to a spare set of code-breaking keys "is not a shift in the >>balance of power," Vatis said. "It's preserving >>the status quo." > >Clearly these folks are talking as if GAK/Key Recovery is mandated for >_domestic_ communications. > >(I think we'll be seeing some mighty interesting documents and discussions >coming out as FOIAs are filed. Just as the FOIAs a few years ago showed the >true thinking behind Clipper: the eventual outlawing of non-Clipper >alternatives.) I was happy to see this article describe the case AGAINST wiretapping, using exactly the same arguments that I previously stated. Fortunately, the person quoted as pushing them was identified as a lawyer, which (I hope) will shut down the naysayers around here. The way I see it, an excellent reason to develop the case against wiretapping is to negate down the argument (which this article shows has been used in favor of Clipper) that the "status quo" is somehow an acceptable situation. If we ever get the GAK-supporters in some kind of real debate that they can't walk away from, the moment they claim that Clipper/GAK is merely "maintaining the status quo" we should be prepared to show that the "status quo" was illegitimately adopted, modified from an illegal situation pre-1968, and intended (as the article indicated) to keep the Democrats in power during a time in which they were maintaining the Vietnam war. In addition, a lot has come out in the last decade or two about what the US Government was up to in the 1960's and before, illegal things, so I'd argue that in hindsight that nobody should have embraced wiretapping if they knew the circumstances under which it was promoted. Cointelpro, etc. Bringing up the issue of J. Edgar Hoover in drag might be considered a low blow, but who cares about fighting "fair" if nobody knows what "fair" is? Inform the average citizen of all this, and THEN tell him that the Supreme Court is unlikely to want to admit they were wrong to support wiretaps, and he'll welcome the news that technology is going to shortly provide him with a way to fix this legal problem with a technical solution. At that point, "the status quo" will be looking MIGHTY unacceptable, and we've won the argument. For anybody who wanted to support GAK claiming it was "maintaining the status quo," this will be an argument which is essentially impossible to defeat, particularly in a debate. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Porn and commerce
by azur＠netcom.com 18 Dec '03

18 Dec '03

> Copyright (c) Virginia Law Review Association 1996. > Virginia Law Review > > April, 1996 > > 82 Va. L. Rev. 535 > >ESSAY: VIRTUAL REALITY AND "VIRTUAL WELTERS": A NOTE ON THE COMMERCE > CLAUSE IMPLICATIONS OF REGULATING CYBERPORN > > Glenn Harlan Reynolds > > In recent months, there has been a great deal of publicity regarding >the availability of pornography over the Internet and other computer >networks, along with proposals for regulation. n1 Recent months have >also seen the prosecution of one couple, located in California, by >authorities in Memphis, Tennessee, for the contents of a computer >bulletin board they operated. n2 According to media accounts, the Memphis >location was chosen for its conservative juries, who were expected to be >unsympathetic to Bay Area pornographers. n3 No doubt more such >prosecutions, by both federal and state and local authorities, are on the >horizon. > > As the first of its kind, this prosecution raises interesting >questions regarding the appropriateness and nature of "community >standards" n4 developed to deal with local entities like bookstores n5 >and movie theaters n6 as applied to almost locationless entities such as >computer bulletin board systems. Indeed, the American Civil Liberties >Union has argued in court that the appropriate community standard for >such cases is that of the online community, rather than of any particular >geographic area. n7 > > My point here, though, is a narrower one: that we need not even >reach the First Amendment to discover serious difficulties with >locality-based regulation of computer bulletin board systems. Instead, we >may look to the Supreme Court's Commerce Clause jurisprudence for some >useful guidance on the inappropriateness of such regulation. Only where >regulations pass the Commerce Clause test is it even necessary to address >First Amendment issues, and, as I will suggest, even there the test >provides significant guidance. > [snip] > > These cases, and the principles that lie behind them, raise two >important points. Most obviously, it would appear that state or local >regulation of communication over computer networks on obscenity grounds >is very likely a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause because of the >variations produced by the community standards doctrine. After all, if it >is too much of a burden for interstate merchandisers to keep track of >variations in state sales tax rates and classifications, it certainly >must be too great a burden for interstate publishers to keep track of >variations in the far less certain "community standards" of obscenity and >indecency. > > The second and perhaps more important point is that if we are willing to >grant interstate sellers of office equipment and porcelain "collector" >dolls such extensive protection from local interference in the name of >protecting commerce, surely we should be even more willing to provide such >protection in the name of free speech. For the protection provided by the >dormant Commerce Clause is merely a matter of judicial inference; the >value of a free press, on the other hand, is explicitly spelled out in >the First Amendment. > > Such an approach would, of course, limit the ability of communities to >develop unique standards of obscenity, and move us closer toward a >uniform national standard. n18 While that development is not without its >drawbacks,neither are the many other movements toward uniformity >mandated by the Constitution. But we have accepted them nonetheless. n19 > > Taking this approach seriously would mean barring prosecutions, >under state or local law, of out-of-state individuals and entities for >obscenity where the material in question came via computer connections. More >interestingly, it would also mean that courts should regard even federal >prosecutions that employ local community standards with a considerable >degree of suspicion. For while Congress is generally regarded as having >the power to override dormant Commerce Clause considerations through >appropriate legislation, we should be reluctant to assume that it has >done so by implication, simply because of the existence of federal >criminal laws. n20 The idea of a national market, after all, is one that >Congress may override through the passage of appropriate legislation, >n21 but that is a far cry from saying that federal prosecutors should be >able to do the same. > > Whether my suggestion will be taken seriously, on the other hand, >is an open question at best. For one thing, it must overcome the natural >tendency of academics, journalists, and judges to rush to the First >Amendment whenever an issue involving speech or publication appears. For >another, it must overcome the equally natural tendency to forget that >parts of the Constitution outside the Bill of Rights - even the Commerce >Clause - may serve as important guarantors of liberty. And aside from >these hurdles, it requires a recognition, that there is still a role for >the nationalist parts of the Constitution, despite today's resurgence of >interest in the powers of states and in dlimitations on the federal >government. n22 > > Despite all of these trends and tendencies, I think that there is >still room to ask whether it is appropriate, or even constitutional, to >allow states to govern expression under circumstances in which they would >not be permitted to collect sales taxes on sales of Elvis dolls or K-Tel >merchandise. Where it has been necessary, we have managed to update our >view of the Constitution to accommodate changes in technology. It is time >that we do so again. > It seems these arguments raise yet a third point. It seems that one could quite easily extend the 'Commerce Clause' to beyond our own borders and infer that countries have no right to regulate Net commerce from servers which originate outside their borders. It seems a key question hinges on the 'source' of authority for the laws of countries, which most would claim is their NATURAL and INALIENABLE SOVERIGNTY insofar as matters of commerce and diplomacy are concerned. But should one country have the legal right to regulate the commerce of parties with no physical presence within their borders? After all, if it is reasonable to assume too much of a burden for interstate merchandisers to keep track of variations in state sales tax rates and classifications for interstate publishers to keep track of variations in the far less certain "community standards" of obscenity and indecency, on what NATURAL basis should the U.S. (or for that matter any country) attempt to impose such national burdens on international merchandisers and publishers? PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Snoop Daty Data | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Grinder | Sacred Cow Meat Co. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Counter-cultural technology development our specialty. Vote Libertarian. Just say NO to prescription DRUGS. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis "Surveillence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential entertainment." -- G. Beato

1 0