December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Criminal gif's
by cdmorgan＠mosaic.uncc.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Look around there everywhere In fcat those are not so bad L8r Charles

1 0

digital cash
by ssteele＠eff.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey 'punks. Anyone know of an elementary primer on digital cash? I'm trying to get up to speed on this. You can send me private e-mail at ssteele(a)eff.org. Thanks! Shari

1 0

unsub
by dobrowol＠husc.harvard.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Please take me off the list. Txanx a lot.

1 0

REFERENCE: Data Communications Int'l - August
by cypher01＠eternity.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

McGraw Hill's *Data Communications* magazine (int'l edition) of August '93 has a long and informative article on the Clipper issue. Reference: "Clinton's Clipper: Can It Keep a Secret? - The administration's new encryption chip should have been code-named 'Controversy'" by Salvatore Salamone *Data Communications*, August 1993 pp 53-54, 56, 58 Vol. 22, No. 11 ISSN 0363-6399 No mention is made of PGP. However, general DES and RSA are covered in some detail, with some mention made of DSS. Russell Earl Whitaker whitaker(a)eternity.demon.co.uk Communications Editor AMiX: RWhitaker EXTROPY: The Journal of Transhumanist Thought Board member, Extropy Institute (ExI) Co-organizer, 1st European Conference on Computers, Freedom and Privacy, London, 20 November 1993

1 0

subscribe please
by John Gibb - Computer Centre 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

subscribe jon(a)cs.paisley.ac.uk quit (That's if this is NOT an invite only mail list)

1 0

Re: EFF GIF file recall notice: is EFF the new CERT?
by ssteele＠eff.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I included the GIF warning in EFFector Online for unsuspecting BBS operators. Child pornography is not protected speech, and challenging child pornography laws is not currently on EFF's agenda -- but protecting BBS sysops from having their systems seized is. I figured those who sought to challenge the child pornography laws would poo poo the message. I guess I figured right. BTW, before I ran the article, Mike Godwin and I had a discussion about whether the *cops* would be angry, thinking we were obstructing justice. I guess I just can't win! I'd like to request that this discussion be taken off the cypherpunks list, since it is not on point to the list. O.k. by you? Shari

1 0

On Unsubscribing
by dmandl＠lehman.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm certainly not encouraging anyone to unsubscribe, but I'm continually surprised at how many people don't know how to do it. Folks, if you want to send a message to the administrator of any list (this includes subscribes, unsubscribes, address changes, etc.), please don't send it to everyone on the list. The administrator of xxx(a)yyy.zzz can almost always be found at xxx-request(a)yyy.zzz. If you don't get an answer right away, please be patient-- don't scream about it to everyone on the list. Most list administrators do it out of the goodness of their hearts, not for pay, and they may not be able to get to it right away. It's funny seeing people who are complaining about the high volume on a list increase that volume with messages that don't belong there. --Dave.

1 0

Re: digital cash
by af391＠freenet.carleton.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Hey 'punks. >Anyone know of an elementary primer on digital cash? I'm trying to get up >to speed on this. You can send me private e-mail at ssteele(a)eff.org. >Thanks! >Shari > I'm also very slow on this topic, and hope to get faster so as to write about it in a Canadian newspaper. Suggestions? Cheers, -- Peter Hum af391(a)Freenet.carleton.ca (613) 596-3761 (voice) (613) 726-1198 (fax)

1 0

Re: PGP in Fidonet
by habs＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:12 PM 10/3/93 -0400, Mike Godwin wrote: >Uploading a GIF to a BBS is definitely a different issue from those raised >by ECPA, which has to do with electronic mail. > private files ontheir systems that aren't communications. Situtation: I assume this is a gray area. But let's say at a meeting of friends in one state (e.g., Boulder Creek, Ca), we create a Video message, digitize it, and sent it to that friend, by uploading into an account that I (habs) and the friend (rjc) has joint access to? Questions: Is that communications? Is it private? What if the message contains images that might be considered "adult"? Would it be different if that file was e-mailed or FTPed rather than uploaded. Or, let's say I put in some very public FTP site, but used RSA to legally encrypt it with my friend's public key? Would it be private communications or public? -- Harry S. Hawk ON Vacation

2 1

Re: Crypto Idea; Multi-Part Sigs
by cme＠ellisun.sw.stratus.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yes, it's possible to have a variant of RSA in which multiple people are needed to sign anything. I don't know a way to use the same key for privacy and allow any of the people to decrypt, using RSA, since for RSA signatures and decryption are the same operation. - Carl

1 0