December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

gephardt slams crypto regs
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------- Forwarded Message Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 00:57:05 -0700 From: "J. Orlin Grabbe" <kalliste(a)aci.net> Subject: [Fwd: Encryption is vital to the Net BY RICHARD A. GEPHARDT] - -> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List Path: news.alt.net!news1.alt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-pull.sprintlink.net!news-in-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!198.240.78.6!news.us.net!not-for-mail From: softwar(a)us.net (SOFTWAR) Newsgroups: talk.politics.crypto,alt.wired,alt.politics.democrats.d,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.politics.clinton,alt.president.clinton,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.whitehous.gov,alt.politics.org.cia,alt.politics.org.nsa,alt.politics.org.fbi Subject: Encryption is vital to the Net BY RICHARD A. GEPHARDT Date: Fri, 22 Aug 1997 22:22:02 GMT Organization: SOFTWAR Message-ID: <5tkhs3$fun$1(a)news.us.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: host46.richmond.us.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82 Xref: news.alt.net talk.politics.crypto:17311 alt.wired:55794 alt.politics.democrats.d:270387 alt.politics.usa.republican:490233 alt.politics.clinton:344303 alt.president.clinton:129822 talk.politics.misc:571350 alt.politics.usa.misc:167063 alt.politics.usa.congress:129082 alt.politics.org.cia:23221 alt.politics.org.nsa:9829 alt.politics.org.fbi:12348 Encryption is vital to the Net BY RICHARD A. GEPHARDT THE Clinton administration's recent call for a ``non-regulatory, market-oriented'' approach to promoting Internet commerce includes many constructive initiatives. However, if we are to realize the full potential of the Internet, we must also end the outdated restrictions on U.S. exports of encryption products. Encryption, which encodes electronic messages so that only a recipient with the ability to decode the message can read it, is vital to the future of Internet commerce. It prevents crime by keeping hackers from reading your e-mail or stooling your credit card numbers. It helps companies protect trade secrets. As more information flows over the open networks that constitute the Internet, people increasingly need encryption to keep their information secure. Because encryption is not restricted domestically, you would think American companies would be global leaders in world markets. But often they aren't allowed to compete. Fearing the availability of encryption abroad could make it more difficult for the U.S. government to intercept the communications of criminals and gather intelligence, the current and past Administrations have chosen to maintain strict export controls on encryption. The level of encryption U.S. companies are permitted to export is now so weak that a college hacker can break it in less than four hours. If export controls could keep encryption from criminals, controls would make sense. But U.S. self-restraint has simply encouraged foreign producers of strong encryption, who are not covered by export limits, to fill the vacuum. Hundreds of strong encryption products, many developed in countries like Canada, Ireland, Germany and Russia, are increasingly available abroad. And as foreign competitors use their advantage in encryption to win more high-tech sales, we lose jobs. The National Research Council's blue-ribbon panel on encryption policy recently warned that ``foreign competition could emerge at a level significant enough to damage the present U.S. world leadership'' in the software industry. Such damage could jeopardize hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs. It could also undermine our national security, according to the Council, by making it harder for the U.S. government to keep abreast of evolving encryption technology in the future. The Council endorsed a relaxation of export controls in order to maintain the U.S. lead in this vital sector. The Administration has proposed a ``key recovery'' system to require users to make available to governments the ``keys''' to decode their private communications. But giving governments worldwide ready access to individuals' private information and to corporate secrets raises difficult issues. Will U.S. firms operating in China be forced to trust that government with the keys to their trade secrets? Will human rights groups abroad, where U.S. constitutional protections do not apply, be forced to give authoritarian governments the keys to their membership lists? Can we really expect criminals to give up their keys so that they may be made available to the government? Key recovery won't work unless the many countries that produce encryption adopt it. Otherwise criminals could still obtain encryption from non-complying countries. But countries like Germany have refused to support key recovery. Indeed, they have a strong economic incentive to resist. As long as the international disagreements persist and we hog-tie our industry, their's will enjoy an advantage in world markets. The National Research Council urged a balanced approach to this problem: improve security on the Internet and prevent crime by relaxing exports controls and allowing U.S. exporters to meet the competition. Maintain robust controls against rogue nations. Impose penalties for misusing encryption to commit crime. And invest in additional technical capabilities to help our intelligence agencies adjust to the information age. Led by Members like Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, more than 250 Democrats and Republicans in the House of Representatives -- myself included -- have joined in support of the Security and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) bill to relax export controls and advance many of the recommendations of the National Research Council. With growing support, the SAFE bill makes it clear that the Congress will not tolerate the continued shackling of our high-tech sector. We are willing to work with all sides to develop a consensus on a workable, market-oriented approach that can advance our law enforcement interests and win international acceptance. But we aren't willing to simply watch the current stalemate continue and keep U.S. industry on the sidelines. It is time to move forward and modernize our export policies for the information age. Rep. Richard A. Gephardt, D-Mo., is the House Democratic leader. Published Thursday, August 21, 1997, in the San Jose Mercury News - -> Send "subscribe snetnews " to majordomo(a)world.std.com - -> Posted by: "J. Orlin Grabbe" <kalliste(a)aci.net> ------- End of Forwarded Message

2 1

Re: Top 10 Ways to Make a Grouchy Old CypherPunk Smile - #9
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Top 10 Ways to Make a Grouchy Old CypherPunk Smile -------------------------------------------------- #10) Find his shoes for him. #9) Buy Kent Crispin a Dr. Kevorkian gift-certificate. #8) #7) #6) #5) #4) #3) #2) #1) [This space reserved for T.C. May]

2 1

Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)
by Jenaer Mixmaster Anonserver 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa(a)st.nepean.uws.edu.au> wrote: >I have always found such arms races pointless and unproductive. Now >instead of paying a small amount of money to the goverment you have to pay >a massive amount of money for a securaty system. Big thing with video >camers, motion sensors and plungomatic securaty gards. Uh, don't you mean "instead of paying a large amount of money to the government and a small amount of money for a security system, you now just pay a small amount of money for the security system"? Or do you live in a different reality to the rest of us, whose cops are so fuck-awful that we have to both pay their wages and the obscene costs of our corrupt legal system, then pay extra to actually protect ourselves? Guns and cameras are cheap compared to paying donut-hogs to examine rectums with plungers. CopPlunger

8 11

Returned mail: Remote protocol error
by Mail Delivery Subsystem 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Transcript of session follows ----- 554 <eawassermn(a)aol.com>... Remote protocol error ----- Unsent message follows ----- Received: by bayonet.sjmercury.com; id AA03901; Thu, 28 Aug 97 20:34:03 PDT Received: from mailspool.sjmercury.com(192.30.148.20) by bayonet.sjmercury.com via smap (3.2) id xma003851; Thu, 28 Aug 97 20:33:38 -0700 Received: from bayonet.sjmercury.com by sjmercury.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id UAA08381; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 20:34:13 -0700 Received: by bayonet.sjmercury.com; id AA03843; Thu, 28 Aug 97 20:33:32 PDT Received: from wombat.sk.sympatico.ca(142.165.5.136) by bayonet.sjmercury.com via smap (3.2) id xma003833; Thu, 28 Aug 97 20:33:23 -0700 Received: from default (orenco33.sk.sympatico.ca [142.165.99.33]) by wombat.sk.sympatico.ca with SMTP (8.7.1/8.7.1) id VAA28468; Thu, 28 Aug 1997 21:34:33 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <3406440E.724F(a)toad.com> Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 21:37:50 -0600 From: Cypherpunks Mailing List <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Reply-To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01C-SYMPA (Win95; U) Mime-Version: 1.0 To: Cindy Cohn <Cindy(a)mcglashan.com> Cc: sadams(a)forbes.com, telstar(a)wired.com, plotnikoff(a)aol.com, Ewasserman(a)sjmercury.com, dang(a)cnet.com, steven(a)echo.net, abate(a)ccnet.com, wendyg(a)cix.compulink.co.uk, amy(a)netcom.com, courtm(a)cnet.com, alan.boyle(a)MSNBC.COM, declan(a)well.com, sep(a)cbsnews.com, kenc(a)cwi.emap.com, arb(a)well.com, exp(a)mk.ibek.com, bransten(a)interactive.wsj.com, TomBemis(a)pacbell.net, sam.perry(a)reuters.com, jimevans(a)aol.com, ljflynn(a)aol.com, wendyl(a)ljx.com, bernstein-announce(a)toad.com Subject: Sit, Bubu. Sit! / Re: Stay issued; modified stay to follow References: <199708290123.SAA24903(a)gw.quake.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cindy Cohn wrote: > > During a conference call with counsel today, Judge Patel issued a stay of > the injunctive relief issued in her Opinion of August 25, 1997, effective > until September 8. Why are these dinosaurs fucking away perfectly good taxpayer's money trying to shore up the walls of a crumbling civilization? NEWS FLASH!!! THE GENIE *WON'T* GO BACK IN THE BOTTLE --------------------------------------- Before the ink had dried on Judge Patel's ruling, 2,000,000 emails of Professor Bernstein's work were on their way overseas, to every port of call. (Courtesy of Email Blaster, that wonderful progam that tells us, fifty times a day, how to "MAKE MONEY FA$T!!!") > On September 8 (or sooner if we get the papers to her) the Court she will > issue a formal Stay Pending Appeal which will stay the injunctive relief > issued in her Opinion of August 25, 1997, except that an injunction shall be > reinstated to prevent the prosecution of Professor Bernstein for the > "unlicensed export" of Snuffle 5.0 (which includes Snuffle and Unsnuffle) > and any later versions of that program which he has developed. Hell, Professor Bernstein can _import_ it now! By September 8, the program will be obsolete, having been tweaked upward a few generations by Iraquian programmers. I respectfully requested that the Iraquis make any future versions of the program available to American youth who have to flee to Hitler's homeland with their website in order to avoid being persecuted for their sexual predeliction. {See - http://www.guidemag.com/newsslant/vigilante-censors.html } > This eliminates, at least for the meantime, the injunctive relief granted to > Bernstein as to any other computer programs which he may have developed or > otherwise wished to publish. It also eliminates the protections for persons > other than Professor Bernstein. No it doesn't. Haven't you heard of strong crypto? Thank you for pointing out that Phil Zimmerman wishes to protect me, and Judge Patel wishes, on behalf of the government, to "eliminate the protections" which strong encryptions affords me. The governement can't even protect themself, let alone the citizens, as evidenced by the fact that the current sport of teenage hackers across the nation is to send strong encryption overseas by way of the government's email systems. (Can you say FBI? Sure you can! Can you say IRS? Sure you can!) Yet these dweebs want to destroy an industry that *is* capable of providing the citizens protection? (Considering the INSLAW affair, perhaps it would be more fitting to say "destroy _another_ industry.") > The government has said that it may still challenge this more limited stay > in the 9th Circuit. Professor Bernstein may also seek relief from the stay > from the 9th Circuit. I hope these idiots are having fun and making lots of money playing their dinosaur games, because they are certainly accomplishing the opposite of what they claim to be trying to do. The most that the dinosaurs in D.C. can manage to do, is to drag all of the American business interests down into the ashes of history with them as they attempt to build an Electromagnetic Curtain behind which to imprison their citizens. Well, the CypherPunks were digging tunnels before the government even knew they were predestined to build the Wall, so the fascist censors are sucking hind-tit and will, in all likelihood, continue to do so. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ TruthMonger, CoE <tm(a)dev.null> Official Spokesperson for: Cypherpunks Cult of One, DoWell, Saskatchewan Division "Give me bandwidth, or give me death." -Admiral B. d'Shauneaux "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix "WebWorld & the Mythical Circle of Eunuchs" http://bureau42.base.org/public/webworld

1 0

Re: cryptography eliminates lawyers?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:05 AM 9/7/95 -0400, Duncan Frissell wrote: > Well, if crypto reduces the role of government in human affairs, it will > reduce work for lawyers. Telecoms will certainly break the professional > monopoly of lawyers (and other professionals). The functional equivalent of lawyers will still have a role. When an escrow agent allocates large chunks of money in some fashion, and somebody says X was bad, and X says that Y was bad, and the reputations are worth real money, we will need a public examination to determine what really happened. And if governments collapse entirely, and we get full bore anarchy, lawyers will have even more work because instead of a few reputations being worth large sums of cash, everyones reputation will be worth life and limb. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: Notes from NIS&T Key Escrow Export conference.
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The last issue in the session was that the length of the key, 64-bits, >was defined in criteria #1. There was no discussion at the conference on >this criteria. It seems that the NIS&T and NSA folks believe that this is a >closed topic. The folks in the session did not agree. They felt that 64-bits >was not enough. I hope this gets to you before the conference is over. I would REALLY like to hear the government response to the question: "If keys are escrowed, what purpose does a 64 bit limit serve?" Secondarily, I observe that this apparently precludes the use of OTP. Peter Trei ptrei(a)acm.org

1 0

Tim coins another phrase? / Re: Suing gun makers?
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > If they won, then the courthouse in which this happened should be McVeighed. Kind of has a 'ring' to it...or is that a 'boom?'

1 0

Re: fast modular reduction (proof?)
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > In the following pseudocode, B is the radix in which the numbers are > represented (2^32 for a 32-bit machine), n is the length of modulus in > blocks, U is B^(n+1) mod the modulus, X is the number to be reduced, k+1 > is the length of X, and Y is the result. > > 1. Y = X > 2. For i from k down to n+1, repeat steps 3 and 4 > 3. Y = Y - Y[i] * B^i + Y[i] * U * B^(i-n-1) > 4. If Y >= B^i, then Y = Y - B^i + U * B^(i-n-1) To do a proof I rewrite the algorithm: n = len(modulus) // modulus < B^n Y = X // obviously Y = X mod modulus K = B ^ (n+1) - U // U = B ^ (n+1) mod modulus, // therefore K = 0 mod modulus // furthermore K > 0 for (i=len(Y)-1 ; i>n ; i--) { F = B ^ (i-n-1) * K // F > 0 // F = 0 mod modulus Y -= Y[i] * F // Y shrinking, but // Y still the same mod modulus if ( Y >= B^i ) Y -= F // again shrinking, // still the same mod modulus } This shows that Y was shrinking, but is still equal to X mod modulus. To see whether Y really shrinks enough: Y = sum(i=0..len(Y)-1) Y[i] * B^i In the step Y = Y - Y[i] * B^i the highest block of Y is deleted (what could be done fast by reducing the length of Y). Now Y < B^i Afterwards the same value mod modulus is added to keep Y constant: Y = Y + Y[i] * U * B^(i-n-1). Y[i]<B -> Y[i]+1 <= B U < modulus < B^n , therefore U < B^n -> (Y[i]+1) * U < B * B^n = B^(n+1) -> Y[i] * U < B^(n+1) - U -> Y[i] * U * B^ (i-n-1 ) < F Therefore after doing the addition Y < B^i + F Check of the last step: 0 <= U < B^n therefore B^n < B^(n+1) - U <= B^(n+1) Therefore in every loop B^(i-1) < F <= B^i -> Y-F < B^i Partial Correctness: Y = X [ Y = X mod Y < B^len(X) ] K = B ^ (n+1) - U [ K = 0 mod B^n < K <= B^(n+1) ] for (i=len(X)-1 ; i>n ; i--) { [ Y = X mod , Y < B^(i+1) ] F = B ^ (i-n-1) * K [ F = 0 mod , B^(i-1) < F <= B^i ] [ 0 <= Y[i] < B ] [ Y[i] * F = 0 mod , 0 <= Y[i] * F < B^(i+1) ] [ Y >= Y[i] * B^i -> Y >= Y[i] * F ] Y -= Y[i] * F [ Y = X mod , Y < B^i + F (reason see above) , Y >= 0 ] if ( Y >= B^i ) Y -= F // again shrinking, // still the same mod modulus [ Y = X mod , Y >= 0 , Y < B^i ] } Last i was n+1, therefore Y = X mod , Y >= 0 , Y < B^(n+1) This is not enough, Y < B^n is requested. The loop can't be done once more because i-n-1 would become negative. k+1 was the length of X, and n the length of the modulus. You walk down from k to n+1 . In every loop you remove one block of the number. This means you have to do len(X)-len(modulus) loops. In the pseudocode you do only len(X)-len(modulus)-1 loops. One loop seems to be missing. This may be a result of confusion whether your Y starts with Y[0] or Y[1]. I do understand the algorithm as: n = len(modulus) U = B^n mod modulus K = B^n - U // = 0 mod modulus, 0 < K < B^n Y = X for(i=len(X)-1 ; i>= n ; i--) // squeeze Block i in Number Y { // Y < B ^ (i+1) F = B ^ ( i-n ) * K // F = 0 mod modulus Y -= Y[i] * F // subtract Y[i] * B^i, now Y < B ^ i // add the equivalent Y[i] * B^(i-n)*U <= F // now Y < B^i + F if ( Y >= B[i] ) Y -= F // now Y < B^i } Last i was n, therefore Y < B^n , Y = X mod modulus , but perhaps still Y >= modulus. Ok, algorithm understood and agreed (after modifying the loop counter). Any more agreements or disagreements? Hadmut -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBME8QImc1jG5vDiNxAQFREgQAiMWfgy3bZtPckCNToAvKP7A+JevlnrqG wJT6/111656nAZHDF5Htr2vwPEmiR522IvPKMG2MnOanMIRn2bgBYG3GECA3zlDo ZnXNT1OXdtZzv848WPryLVjSJrrVTX/PUN9d6LaTqLBP5pZXwAYkO5kLU6/WP6yL tF+fniXDZvk= =Ev0S -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Force Ratios
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wednesday night's ABC magazine program on Ruby Ridge was a great example of what TV can be but so rarely is. Lots of chopper shots of Ruby Ridge. Lots of hand held camera recreations and interviews with the Weavers and the sniper (face obscured because he has something to hide), etc. But the most interesting thing that this emphasized for me was the sort of modern information warfare issues as highlighted in the recent Economist Survey. Info war is war by other means (a little shooting, communications, publicity, and litigation) and look what happened at Ruby Ridge. The Feds deployed 400 "troopies", some armored personnel carriers, copters, executive jets, Hummers, and other hardware. On the other side were 3 adults and 4 children with some 14 personal weapons. The result. One Fed and two Weavers dead. A $3.1 million legal settlement, and continuing problems for the Feds. That smells like a bad defeat to me. They couldn't even kill 7 people with a 57 to 1 force ratio. In addition, the operation and the various investigations must have cost the Feds millions more. (What *do* the Fibbies have to pay for those Ninja Hoods?) And they lost. That suggests that the ability of The Great Enemy to overcome the sort of directed human activity of the frictionless markets we are building will be quite limited. DCF "Your Honor, the Defense will rest without calling any witnesses. No witnesses we could put on the stand could do as good a job setting forth the Defense case as the Government's witnesses have already done." -- Gerry Spence at the conclusion of the Government's case in US vs. Weaver.

1 0

The World's Fastest Crypto Teacher
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alexis wrote: > Is there anybody that can tutor me how to hack, crack, phrank, and > cryptomography ( i'm not sure i speel that last part correctly. > I would like to get some help, please email me back ASAP thank you so > very much Alexis, I would be happy to teach you everything I know about cryptography. ...uuhhh... There, that didn't take long. Any questions? TruthMonger

1 0