December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: cfp '94 transcript
by Jack King 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Also note that the Fifth Circuit recently discarded the "exculpatory no" defense to Sec. 1001. See _United States v. Rodriguez-Rios_, No. 92- 8257 (5th Cir. 2/11/94) (Smith, J.). Reported at 54 CrimLRptr 1528. Now, in the Fifth Circuit, you can't even say "No, I never did/say/thought that" without committing a crime!

2 1

Re: personal manifesto (comments appreciated)
by W. Kinney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

T.C. May writes: >And part of preventing totalitarianism means not interfering with >economic transactions made by folks. Say, Public Key Partners, for instance? ;-) -- Will

1 0

Shirt project
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The "1984" T-shirt was suggested by one of the NSA reps at the CFP >conference. The fellow involved was indeed from the the NSA, but he was by no means representing it. I understand from him that he did a bit of bureaucratic hacking just to attend. He also kindly offered to post from dockmaster that he had seen me and some other tentacles in the same place and at the same time at a privacy conference, but alas, there were no tentacles to be found. Eric

1 0

Re: Shirt project
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> jdblair(a)nextsrv.cas.muohio.EDU writes: > > 1 9 8 4 > > > > "We're behind schedule." > > National Security Agency > > were interested in the design. I thought that on the back I might make a > list of government policies which are eroding civil rights. Sounds a bit busy -- what about the WiReD Clipper logo: the fist clutching the airwaves? I assume they'd give permission if asked nicely... Jim Gillogly Highday, 7 Astron S.R. 1994, 01:43

2 1

Re: cfp '94 transcript
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> ObNit: As has been said before by others, there's more to >> Clipper/EES than just the Skipjack algorithm. I think simply asking >> if "the [Skipjack] algorithm contains a deliberately encoded >> weakness" leaves too much room for a "truthful" No answer. >I'm not sure what the NSA policy is on this. However, at that >same conference Jim Settle from the FBI told us plainly that >he is allowed to lie, and that the courts have confirmed this >right. I doubt Baker would have confessed to a back door even >if one existed and the question was complete. And, then they get bummed out when the public doesn't _believe_ them.

1 0

Re: Ames/clipper compromised?
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>A useful exercise for this group might be to compile a list of questions >that they *should* answer if they're playing it straight. These could >be forwarded to the review committee, too. If we come up with a good >list, I'm willing to submit it to them. For that matter, I'll submit >it to one of the gentleman from NSA who gave the Clipper presentation >at Bell Labs. (But I won't bother sending in ``when did you stop beating >your spousal equivalent unit'' questions; there's no point to doing that >in this venue.) I've sent this exact question to Dorothy Denning back when they were working on the first report. I think it got lost in the noise. You might want to send it to her directly. They're open to suggestions. The first report contained cycling tests suggested, by I believe, Martin Hellman. -Peter Wayner

1 0

FOIA, Clipper & NSC (National Security Council)
by Harry Shapiro Hawk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, THere was a wire service report over the weekend that the Clinton Administration, is moving to prevent any doc- ments, etc. created by the NSC (National Security Council) from being subject to FOIA. I wonder, vis-a-vis, Glimore's FOIA for Escrow keysd, if they will move to make NSC a Key holder. Anyway, i thought it was worth mentioning. /hawk Harry Shapiro Hawk Manager of Computer Services Warwick Baker & Fiore habs(a)uucp.warwick.com

2 1

Re: Very funny, Polyanna
by nobody＠soda.berkeley.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Why, Grahamy, thanks so much for that mail! I submitted my key to the key servers over a year ago and this is the first piece I received. And a juicy little message it was, too... you naughty boy! But I'm flattered, really. Oh, and sorry about putting that key up and ruining all your plans. But I'm sure it will all work out for the best. These things always do, you know! Polyanna -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQBFAgUBLZeHOxnRghhlmcunAQHtngGAtk3HsEY7MFMW6d8/IIJzupIXPwP4DMj7 cRofJq1FXd/2FgmU3OgKqko8jYNlvum+ =H/xe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: personal manifesto (comments appreciated)
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Extended Commentary: 1) While the most likely possibility is that the Net will simply mirror current society, a Net of this [mirror] structure would fail to realize its potential as an agent of social change. COMMENT: That is, supposing that the net was designed to be an "agent for social change". I have not read where it was designed to exist for that specific purpose. A social effect which is not intentioned is simply a by-product of the fact that many people have found an avenue or tool useful for the satisfaction of their own particular purposes. Since communication itself is a medium for the accomplishment of most purposes which involve others; it is not exceptional, therefore, that the net should have become such a popular tool, it being so easy to use compared to the other means available. The important thing which I see about the net is not that it serves "social purposes", but that it helps individuals to achieve their *own* purposes. This sounds like only a difference in wording, but the difference is in what is judged as a 'good' purpose, or which end of the telescope you are using to view the situation: why is the end of having a collective 'good' better than the activity of simply achieving one's own ideal (of goodness, happiness, propriety, etc.). What is so unsubstantial about the uncounted individual that only a large number of them can be considered worthy of consideration. 3) Current arguments for regulation of cryptography by government agencies depend on the argument [that] they are maintaining their current abilities in the brave new world of cyberspace. I argue that even if this were the case, we have a responsibility to do more than simply maintain the status quo. . . . . COMMENT: What responsibility? (Irresponsible Unit wants to know) If the government centralizes responsibility, there will be none for the rest of us to comprehend. 4) It is the responsibility of the information haves to spread their knowledge to the information have-nots. ......... Knowledge which is not of a personal nature should be freely accessible. COMMENT: The library is full of information which many people do not take advantage of, and it's "free". Many wise people have written much that they wished to share with others, yet many 'havenots' do not avail themselves of it (at least, not the ones who seem to need it). 1) how much intellectual support does everyone need, anyway; 2) access to information does not replace having the incentive to appreciate it or the ability to understand it; 3) where does all this information come from, anyway? How did it become "information"; what was it before it was converted into an abstract form (carbon-based or electronic)? If it is moral to have information, and immoral *not* to have it, then many people are guilty of criminal negligence for not using their faculties of observation & thought in regard of all the data which exists all around them in an immediately accessible form. 6) ... People cannot participate in a democratic society if they are not educated to a minimal level required for functioning in that society. This is the crux of our societal problems, as well as the crux of possible problems with the Net. COMMENT: They should all understand the purpose of "society". Is it to be social, or to be free to be themselves, or what. If the purpose is more clearly stated and understood (and communicated to its members) then they each can decide whether, or how much, they wish to participate in its "goals". Societies are complex mixtures of people with all sorts of motives. At least on the net, it is easy to leave when your motives are in conflict, especially if your subscription is up. 7) ... one human has an enormous capacity to injure and exploit another human. We must decide which ability we wish to empower, and judge which we actually do. COMMENT: If everyone were equally able to injure & exploit others, people would become sensitive to what kind of effect they intended to achieve (upon others), and become more acutely attuned to the possible consequences. But if everyone was much more respectable & honorable than they presently are, there would be fewer reasons to attempt to bring harm to them; admiration itself would serve to prevent thoughts of evil deeds against those whose qualities one valued. You could as easily say that those who wish to be treated kindly should cultivate noble qualities and character, so that others will not be easily inspired to hit them over the head. 8) . . . My hope is that this restructuring will create a better society than the one I know. COMMENT: It would be possible to make society better, if people were not always changing their mind, developing new ideas, learning new things about themselves and the world, attempting to adjust to changing circumstances, and generally getting in each other's way as they accomplish all of these things. Pehaps if there were more space between people (like on the net), where they could engage in these activities without easily affecting others, this in itself could "improve" "society". But they always seem to want to grow up in each other's company, instead of doing their homework in private. 9) My beliefs are [hopelessly] utopian. . This faith must not be confused with [certainty]. . We must be satisfied with [approximations]. . I have faith in democratic principles to [shape society] . . . . . It is impossible to [predict the shape] of the society . . . . A few risks are of the [tyranny of the majority], ...... . The will of the people is [impossible to define], ..... COMMENT: I re-arranged your paragraphs to associate the meanings which I saw in them, and they do appear to be in conflict. 10) All actions have moral implications. Ignoring these implications is irresponsible and, yes... immoral. COMMENT: Se la vie'. Therefore what. Final comment: "Society" is in the quality of the contact. Blanc

1 0

Re: cfp '94 transcript
by lcottrell＠popmail.ucsd.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Also note that the Fifth Circuit recently discarded the "exculpatory no" >defense to Sec. 1001. See _United States v. Rodriguez-Rios_, No. 92- >8257 (5th Cir. 2/11/94) (Smith, J.). Reported at 54 CrimLRptr 1528. > >Now, in the Fifth Circuit, you can't even say "No, I never did/say/thought >that" without committing a crime! I think this needs more explanation. I am not sure I understand what you are saying. What exactly is it illegal for you to say? -------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell who does not speak for CASS/UCSD loki(a)nately.ucsd.edu PGP 2.3 key available by finger or server. "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche

1 0