December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: NRC panel wants questions for Law Enforcement on crypto policy
by wb8foz＠nrk.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In April, gnu asked: > Herb Lin called today to ask if the Cypherpunks could come up with a > list of questions for their panel to ask the law enforcement community > about crypto policy. They will be meeting with senior law enforcement > officials like FBI Director Freeh a week or so from now. Did we ever get any feedback on this? - -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBMAw6JRqU5+N/mI7JAQEWQQP/UCKWs1m8cMbbG7pAk7CKPjKSAP9yJLvw m+vBFcC+TuFPrQSEjhK7s4qJnck3IzIXl7AmV70NFkr9Dc1Wni7YHkrfhx0nnRRe 7F131pKMNlgypyX/u3FaEHXtCxQV9R5IpYzBAGpvQ++3dzR7LdXcvS2I7kvcWf2G 6knV4KwHvp4= =9+ER -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: SurfWatch for employees (ugh)
by sbryan＠maroon.tc.umn.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:36 pm 7/17/95, Greg Broiles wrote: [snip] >(Pedants need not point out that personal choice (and personal filtering) >are always appropriate, and indeed empowering. Neither WebTrack nor >NetSurf are marketed to help people subject themselves to a regime >of repression - they are intended and sold to allow the purchaser to >control what others (perceived as having fewer or no rights) will read [snip] There doesn't seem to be any suggestion that an employer will attempt to control net access that you pay and use yourself with your own equipment. What's the problem? As far as net access from work, that will naturally sort itself out. If unfettered access is beneficial to an enterprise then that will become apparent as "repressive" companies prove incapable of competing with "permissive" companies. +---------------------------------------------------------------------- |Steve Bryan Internet: sbryan(a)maroon.tc.umn.edu |Sexton Software CompuServe: 76545,527 |Minneapolis, MN 55415 Fax: (612) 929-1799 |PGP key fingerprint: B4 C6 E2 A6 5F 87 57 7D E1 8C A6 9B A9 BE 96 CB +----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Re: Root Causes Roots
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The ported URL of my clipper piece seems to have gone spare. He's another try: www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6095/articles/froomkin-metaphor/text.html -- Michael Froomkin until Aug 6: michael(a)umlaw.demon.co.uk U.Miami School of Law London, England mfroomki(a)umiami.ir.miami.edu <-- this will still find me PO Box 248087 Coral Gables, FL 33124-8087 Rain. Sun. Rain. Sun. Rain.

1 0

Re: RC4 crack
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <21076.9507180656(a)exe.dcs.exeter.ac.uk>, aba(a)atlas.ex.ac.uk wrote: >> 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.:) > >Well you could run a local master, ... or as you are using NT right? >you could use Andy's code when he adds socket support to interface to >masters. > >As to the problem of not having 24-7 connectivity, you could either >use the WWW page, or the server (it will do this anyway) will keep >re-trying to get a socket connect to the master until it suceeds, so >when you next go on-line ... wham it gets through again as >connectivity is resumed and says whatever it has been trying to say. >We need it to retry in case of network out (or horror) big master >falling over, until it gets resumed. On many machines that will mean that it will try to initiate a connection to the host. Please allow for a manual connect option. - -- - -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMAwdryoZzwIn1bdtAQHrDwGArifMl83/simhOGutmo8FhYgtCMZ+9g5E stSoeOysXuLCvv3EK3PTTUO4LdtPbhnn =rq/L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: SurfWatch for employees (ugh)
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:36 PM 7/17/95 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote: >Consistent with the trend towards treating employees like children, I'm not surprised someone sees a market for this. I've worked at a number of customer sites that block access to 900 numbers and local pay-per-call numbers, which also blocks access to Time-of-day and some vendors' customer-support numbers. >Webster Network Strategies has announced (but apparently has not >shipped) a product similar to SurfWatch but aimed at an employment >environment. The product is called "WebTrack" and supposedly supports >access lists of URLs, where access can be allowed to "all but these sites" >or "only to these sites". The product also can be configured to log all >Web usage by users subjected to its reign of terror. :) WebTrack >is priced at $7,500 with an annual subscription to I assume for that price that it's a gateway product, rather than a site license for a censored client (which would require sysadmins to go hunt down everybody's copy of netscape...) If so, I hope the system at least offers caching (to save on outside bandwidth requirements and download time), and has a fair amount of security so it doesn't become a hole in the firewall. >its list of interesting (err, forbidden) sites priced at $1,500. Wow! Folks have finally found a way to get paid for looking for porn on the net! :-) Surfwatch doesn't make it's censored list easily available (otherwise it'd probably get pirated, or used as an "interesting sites" index...), but apparently it blocks access to things other than just pornography - does Webster indicate what categories of stuff they're blocking? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com

3 2

Re: Is it legal for commercial companies to use PGP?
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:36 AM 7/18/95 EDT, Jim Grubs, W8GRT wrote: >In practice, I'd probably buy Viacrypt for legal reasons but use PGP anyway. That doesn't help anything - folks asked Bidzos about that one. Of course, if your PGP version happens to output "2.7.1" as a version number, it's not abusing any trademarks.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com

1 0

[shofar@Rt66.com: LEGISLATIVE WATCH AD]
by David Taffs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

fyi... Date: Tue, 18 Jul 1995 08:35:45 -0600 (MDT) From: DJABS <shofar(a)Rt66.com> To: apologia-l(a)netcom.com Subject: LEGISLATIVE WATCH AD _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ LEGISLATIVE WATCH ___________________________________________________________ Subscribe Direct >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shofar(a)RT66.com Interested in catching the political wave? "Legislative Watch" is an electronic newsletter with a focus on First Amendment concerns, religious liberty and other Constitutional issues. Subscribe direct at: shofar(a)RT66.com subject line: <subscribe LW> message line: <email address> <name> ____________________________________________________________________ -- david taffs <dat(a)ebt.com>

1 0

Commercenet document on cryptography
by stevenw＠iglou.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I found the following on CommerceNet: http://www.commerce.net/information/position/position.062695.html Toward Enabling Secure Electronic Commerce: The Need for a Revised U.S. Cryptographic Policy by CommerceNet Network Services Working Group It seems to address all the issues. -- Steven Weller <Windsor Consulting Group> +1 502 454 0054 (voice) OS-9 Consultancy and Software +1 502 451 5935 (fax) Finger for public key 00 02 3C 2F 83 76 D3 77 2A 95 E8 90 94 9A 9D 74 http://iglou.com/windsorgrp stevenw(a)iglou.com or realtime(a)well.sf.ca.us

1 0

We appear...
by perry＠imsi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We appear to have an nntp/mail loop in progress. I believe the problem is at mnemosyne.cs.du.edu -- its posting cypherpunks back to the mailing list (ugh!). .pm

6 5

Re: Root Causes
by monty.harder＠famend.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Disclaimer: IASNAL, but I am the host of the Bill of Rights Conference on the U'NI echonet, where these issues are discussed from time to time.] JR> >violation of the right to privacy? JR> JR> Good idea, but I have an idea to upset even *more* people. [9th and 10th Amendment stuff] Them, too. JR> Republicans AND Democrats ALL HATE the 9th Amendment, which is the primary The reason there was no BOR in the original Constitution was precisely that some folks were afraid that the enumeration of some rights would imply that there are none other. The DOI and other writings of the FFs clearly show that rights are naturally inherent in individual human beans, and that the power of government comes from us, not the other way around. But the FFs also knew that the prevailing view was that rights are what is left over after the government is done flexing its muscles. Bottom line: The Bill of Rights was passed in the Congress as a 12-article gang-bang amendment, and the 10 of them that became the BOR were passed as an organic whole by the several states. [And, of the other two articles, which clearly didn't belong in a BOR, one of them was ratified a few years ago even.] This means that without =any= of the 10 amendments, there would be =no= BOR. JR> slow erosion of freedom in this country. My rejoinder is "OK, if we're JR> supposed to ignore it, why not just REPEAL it, after all, it's just sitting JR> there doing nothing, cluttering up the rest of the Bill of Rights." Usually, Don't give them any ideas! The 2nd is already on that list, and part of the 1st (that refers to "flag desecration", which apparently is more serious than =Constitution= desecration)... don't get me started, I'm way off crypto already. JR> talking about Constitutional issues on encryption rights, if for no other JR> reason than to educate the public. In court, of course, I would concentrate JR> on the 1st. Apologies to the various lurking law professors on the list, I Actually, I would kick in 2 and 4. The government has called crypto a munition, and it =is= a valuable tool for the unorganized militia to fight a guerilla war against an occupation force. The 4th amendment protections against search and seizure are the moon which creates the penumbra of Roe v. Wade.> U'NInet Bill of Rights Conference Host * Physician, heal thyself! --- * Monster(a)FAmend.Com *

1 0