December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)
by jgrubs＠voxbox.norden1.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Andrew.Spring(a)ping.be (Andrew Spring) writes: > So I'm wondering who this RICO stuff applies to. The guy who wrote it and > uploaded it to an FTP site? He's not profiting. The guy who uses it? He > didn't commit the predicate act. Who? It doesn't matter. Even if they say "Oops, sorry" later, the best you can hope for is to get your computer returned as a bushel basket full of junk parts. More likely it'll end up in some police station with "D.A.R.E." painted all over it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: http://norden1.com/~jim/sylvania.html iQCVAwUBMAsAMt74r4kaz3mVAQHtygP+Ou3wJB68ECFzanKNO7l4AIqtZfApNA1z jZNatwmBZGOnQbC6LSQi5La5lws+U/yUs40hW8ZBVwG0/qUGH4RUra57Ubrtya+e B8vz9/Vnou8a5DkW4fSsL+eiNeJimKiFAguUQSdex3gJShjXIpVk/++3AKvEVy6h q43kUVG9irM= =VWRM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- WebCasters(tm) James C. Grubs jgrubs(a)voxbox.norden1.com 6817 Maplewood Avenue Tel.: 419-882-2697 Sylvania, Oh 43560 Fax: 419-885-2814 Internet consulting, HTML programing, Information brokering

1 0

Re: Is it legal for commercial companies to use PGP?
by tim werner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 16:15:10 -0400 >From: tim werner <werner(a)mc.ab.com> >... I was talking to one of the sys admins at >A-B, and he said that we weren't allowed to use PGP to encrypt our mail, >because Viacrypt owned the commercial rights. I should have mentioned that I have no problem with people trying to make money. However, it turns out that ViaCrypt is not selling site-licenses, or even floating licenses, so they actually want to sell a separate copy for every user that will use it. As it happens, the aforementioned sys admin had purchased 5 licenses, to take care of the 2 users he already knew about, and figuring that there would probably be a couple more wanting to jump on the bandwagon. He offered to let me use one of the licenses, but there's no way I can go and tell my users "we have PGP", if I can't tell everyone that they can do it. And, there's no way I can see convincing my boss that we need that many copies of ViaCrypt, just so everyone in my department can encrypt their email traffic. Of course, I realize that none of the above changes the legality. thanks, tw -- Well, Bust My Britches! Eggs Almondine and a Bottle of Beaujolais!

1 0

Re: RC4 crack
by dan＠milliways.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 17 Jul 95 21:36:45 +0100 you wrote: > >Yep a telnet port is it for both reporting and getting keys, also the >WWW interface to the same. > >> I'd basicly like to be able to start the program, nice it, slam it >> in the background, and forget about it. > >Adam > Is there an easy way to integrate machines who are not on-net 24-7 into this protocol? Not all of us have dedicated lines.:) Dan Bailey ****************************************************************************** Vote Speaker Newt Gingrich for President!! Dan Bailey Worcester Polytechnic Institute, class of 1997. merzbow(a)ibm.net ******************************************************************************

1 0

Cray Computer liquidating...
by Phil Fraering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

According to a flier from an e-mail list I'm currently unwillingly subscribed to, Cray Computer is going out of business. Any comments and/or crypto relevance? Phil

1 0

Re: WSJ on remailers...
by hal9001＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:00 7/17/95, Peter Wayner wrote: >The WSJ has a article on anonymous remailers buried in the B section. It >is pretty straightforward and ends up quoting some Finnish police officer >saying that they're not going to go raiding remailers on any suspicion. >They'll need a real crime. That Finnish comment is probably due to the fall-out/flap from their raid on anon.penet.fi in the CoS case.

1 0

Re: Cray Computer liquidating...
by tcmay＠sensemedia.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:32 AM 7/18/95, Phil Fraering wrote: >According to a flier from an e-mail list I'm currently >unwillingly subscribed to, Cray Computer is going out >of business. > >Any comments and/or crypto relevance? This is Cray Computer, not the older Cray Research. Cray Computer was developing a GaAs-based computer that used advanced robotic assembly/packaging. Cray Research spun off the project, led by founder Seymour Cray, and the two companies were wholly separate. Cray Research remained in Minnesota, while Cray Computer was located in Colorado Springs. The split was largely arranged because Cray Research was unwilling or unable to fund both the conventional supercomputer lines _and_ the more experimental machines favored by Seymour Cray. So they let Seymour and the technology split off, and a stock distribution was arranged (I was a shareholder of Cray Research at the time, and recall the distribution). Cray Research is continuing to sell "Crays," including successors of the original Cray line and various multiprocessor machines based on the Sparc processor. Cray Computer was trying to find customers for its Cray 3 and (planned) Cray 4. The saga of the collapse of Cray Computer has been going on for the past year or so, with the last several months being the final chance to reorganize the company and keep it going. They failed, apparently, and now the final liquidation of assets is about to happen. Why didn't the Agency bail them out? Not clear, but my guess is that the advanced _process_ technology of Cray Computer was not so exciting to the NSA. The "attack of the killer micros," to use Eugene Miya's phrasing, is wiping out most conventional advanced processor attempts to get supercomputer speed. When a single piece of CMOS silicon gets 200-500 MIPS, and a bunch of them can be put together, it gets pretty hard to justify hyper-expensive GaAs or Josephson Junction or whatever technologies. Sad for Seymour Cray, especially as he'd been pumping some of his own fortune into keeping Cray Computer going, but its the nature of business. And he'll bounce back, or take a well-deserved retirement. --Tim May .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)sensemedia.net | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-728-0152 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Corralitos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: RC4 crack
by Rev. Mark Grant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 17 Jul 1995 aba(a)dcs.exeter.ac.uk wrote: > The problem with nicing is that most unix schedulers don't seem to > know what nice means,.. you still get a noticable slow down on > interactive jobs on SGI boxes even if you've got it npri -h 150, and > even though the bruterc4 (and the bruteSSL too) have tiny resident > core sizes). Nice -19 works great on SunOS, it sits there happily eating up just about all the unused CPU time and doesn't interfere at all with interactive use. I guess it's the SYSV (ack) machines that have problems, 'cause the scheduler's too sophisticated. Mark

1 0

Zimmerman legal fund
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just received a bit of mail asking about the Zimmermann Legal Defense Fund, which, like many folks out there, I support. The writer implied that he might give money because I suggest it in my sig, but expressed questions about its legitamacy, and questioned if it's "just someone trying to exploit the Zimmerman case" Could someone in the know talk about the relationship between FV and the ZLDF? I don't like to spread misinformation, so I won't answer based on conjectures.

1 0

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: danisch(a)ida.uka.de Hadmut Danisch writes: >I am not familiar with american laws and have two questions: >1. If the bill becomes law, how can someone who violates it be >punished? A criminal RICO violation can be punished by up to 20 years' imprisonment, as well as forfeiture of any personal or real property constituting or derived from proceeds of racketeering activity. A convicted RICO defendant can be fined up to twice the gross profits of the racketeering activity. If the defendant disposes of property otherwise subject to forfeiture, other property owned by the defendant (of equivalent value) may be seized and forfeited. 18 USC 1963. RICO also allows private parties injured by a RICO violation to bring a civil suit and recover three times their actual damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs. A criminal conviction will operate to estop a RICO defendant from denying the facts underlying the criminal conviction in a subsequent civil suit. 18 USC 1964. >2. Does someone who publishes software which encodes or encrypts >(ASCII is a code, isn't it?) have to prove that he has provided the >universal decoder to the state or does the state have to prove that he >didn't do? The defendant has to prove that s/he provided the decoder, because providing the decoder is an affirmative defense. That puts the burden of proof on the defendant on that issue. Were the statute worded that not providing the decoder were an element of the crime, then the government would need to prove that the defendant hadn't provided it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMAtEm33YhjZY3fMNAQF/DQP/QOT1ZvMG/sCU2QnPpZVhHkAZrZf0R1AU 63QmxQTOZJvqhyvS70zrNmhW6mpXshQRpehQtMuUPDh7vtLS/FMatKaJc3yA+RXC 3vzLz3XNooOfM0fV6yIeVpZC5Nw5iMmyb/IwoVHLvAu7zYoGUi/sLoCW2s9xFa3M BmJkUL+/RaY= =fAVx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: Andrew.Spring(a)ping.be Andrew Spring writes: >So I'm wondering who this RICO stuff applies to. The guy who wrote it and >uploaded it to an FTP site? He's not profiting. The guy who uses it? He >didn't commit the predicate act. Who? RICO does not require that either the enterprise or the predicate acts were motivated by (hope of) economic gain. _National Organization for Women v. Scheidler_, 114 S.Ct. 798, 127 L.Ed.2d 99 (1994) or ftp://ftp.cwru.edu/hermes/ascii/92-780.ZO.filt Looks like Bob Dornan wants to change that, though (probably because RICO was used to sue anti-abortion terrorists). He introduced HR 230 which would amend 18 USC 1961(5) to require "profit-seeking purpose" to establish a RICO "enterprise". THOMAS says that HR 230 is in the House Judiciary Committee. RICO is at http://www.law.cornell.edu:80/uscode/18/ch96.html et seq :) for the curious. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMAtASn3YhjZY3fMNAQFZ+AP/VLcDCikMkzT8iA/AmdpKvWpSc/nOybma /6KCnVgOms7+g+MNnJZHQFzjxV2oMjtXSZD1/0ZQeeuZcJGZDqR1tbwj93JNfRjW LsNHB9d5xXk9xxbvJwY+TJgCGeZtp7Yb38yVt2MRGioyl5TDPFNOYTbSPr2t0TCr 0k4aeV81Mq0= =m5jT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0