December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Never Pay for Advertising Again.
by extractor＠impactmarketing.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since you are doing business on the 'net, you know that properly targeting your advertising messages can be pretty tough. And banner ads are still way too expensive Instead of paying for "impressions" to a general audience, wouldn't you rather know that you sent your message directly to the appropriate audience? US World News & Reports came out with an article on Monday May 12, 1997 finding that "70% of Internet users don't mind receiving commercial email messages - as long as they are targeted to their personal interests" I found that you are doing business on the net by using "Extractor PRO" commercial email software. You, too, can send commercial e-mail to those who are interested in what you have to offer, whatever it is - and it's so inexpensive! Once you own the software, you can build your very own Highly Targeted Mailing List, then send your ad out to your targeted mailing list at the push of a button. "You may never have to pay for other forms of advertising again!" "HotWired" Magazine says, "Extractor Pro simplifies the process of gathering and managing email addresses from AOL, Usenet, mailing lists, and other public sources." Feb. 11, 1997 Extractor PRO is loaded with targeting power, high-speed, a user-friendly feel, Online Wizards, Smart Help and Awesome Video Training via "CyberSchool". No other commercial email software is as easy to use and understand. Extractor PRO really makes advertising economical. Just check out the website - you'll be impressed! With your order before Aug. 15, 1997 you'll also receive a free website submission service, World Launch - we'll submit your website to over 200 of the hottest search engines, and also offer you 2000 Free Classified Sites AND Free powerful tips to get your site noticed by the search engines! ($40 value) For more information, simply point your WebBrowser to: http://www.impactmarketing.com http://www.e-offers.com Click here to download our movie! http://www.extractor.com/demo.exe Thank you for your time. ------------------ To be removed from this business list, simply reply to this message with the word, "Remove" in the subject heading, and Extractor PRO will automatically remove you from the list.

1 0

Re: "Voluntary Censorship" vs. Govt Legislation
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ryan Anderson writes: >The second thing, and most important, is that web search engines need >to >index *every* page, and allow the topical/categorization system as a >way >to further limit searchs. You can't make the web search engines do that. It's a free country. What you can do is to avoid the ones which have policies you don't like. If Altavista starts listing only rated sites, you can use a different search engine. Realistically, the percentage of rated sites is probably going to stay low for some time. The big ones will rate, though. So the question will be whether most people are happy with the "top 1%" sites, or whether they want access to the whole web. It seems to me that if you are using a search engine, you probably need access to more than just the big commercial sites. Rogue indexes which don't block unrated sites may have an advantage just in terms of usefulness, even aside from the politics. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Re: forged cancels (Re: Entrust Technologies's Solo - free
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On or About 7 Aug 97 at 0:18, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} <dformosa(a)st.nepean.uws.edu.au> > writes: > > > > Once the offending articles are part of the spool on toher site, > > > it's pointless for me to issue cancels. > > > > Not even to free up diskspace? > > Correct. For no reason whatsoever should you cancel a message you did not send yourself. See: http://www.npr.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?getdoc+npr+npr+12142+2+wAAA+spam NPR's Jim Zarroli reports that UUNet, the Internet service provider whose billboards were blocked, condemned the action and called the incidents "digital terrorism" Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: (408) 259-2795

5 11

Re: Shor's Algorithms: Mad, Bad and Dangerous (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:53:28 -0700 > From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Subject: Re: Shor's Algorithms: Mad, Bad and Dangerous (fwd) > >The Many Worlds Hypothesis was developed by David Bohm and is an alternate > >way of looking at the Uncertaintly Principle, which gets its origin from the > >collapse of wave functions used to describe the potential states of a wave. > > I would give credit to Hugh Everett, a student of John Wheeler's, for > developing this interpreation. In fact, the Many Worlds interpretation is > also called the Everett-Wheeler-Graham Interpretation. This was back in > 1956-7. D. Bohm Phys. Rev., 85, 166-193 (1952) D. Bohm Phys. Rev., 89, 458-466 (1953) D. Bohm Quantum Theory, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1951 L. de Broglie, Electrons et Photons, Rapport au Ve Conseil Physique Solvay, Gauthier-Viliars, Paris, 1930 H. Everett Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454-462 (1957) W. Pauli, in Reports on the 1927 Solvay Congress, Gauthiers-Villiars, et Cie, Paris (1928), 280 ____________________________________________________________________ | | | Participation requires more than just bitching! | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? -- ACLU on labeling (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 7 Aug 1997 22:18:06 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? -- ACLU on labeling ---- http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/burning.html Cyber-Liberties Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? How Rating and Blocking Proposals May Torch Free Speech on the Internet Executive Summary Introduction Is Cyberspace Burning? Free Speech Online: A Victory Under Siege Rethinking the Rush to Rate Recommendations and Principles Six Reasons Why Self-Rating Schemes Are Wrong Is Third-Party Rating the Answer? The Problems With User-Based Blocking Software in the Home Why Blocking Software Should Not Be Used by Public Libraries Conclusion Appendix: Internet Ratings Systems How Do They Work? ______________________________________________________________ Fahrenheit 451.2: Is Cyberspace Burning? How Rating and Blocking Proposals May Torch Free Speech on the Internet Executive Summary In the landmark case Reno v. ACLU, the Supreme Court overturned the Communications Decency Act, declaring that the Internet deserves the same high level of free speech protection afforded to books and other printed matter. But today, all that we have achieved may now be lost, if not in the bright flames of censorship then in the dense smoke of the many ratings and blocking schemes promoted by some of the very people who fought for freedom. The ACLU and others in the cyber-liberties community were genuinely alarmed by the tenor of a recent White House summit meeting on Internet censorship at which industry leaders pledged to create a variety of schemes to regulate and block controversial online speech. But it was not any one proposal or announcement that caused our alarm; rather, it was the failure to examine the longer-term implications for the Internet of rating and blocking schemes. The White House meeting was clearly the first step away from the principle that protection of the electronic word is analogous to protection of the printed word. Despite the Supreme Court's strong rejection of a broadcast analogy for the Internet, government and industry leaders alike are now inching toward the dangerous and incorrect position that the Internet is like television, and should be rated and censored accordingly. Is Cyberspace burning? Not yet, perhaps. But where there's smoke, there's fire. [...] Conclusion The ACLU has always favored providing Internet users, especially parents, with more information. We welcomed, for example, the American Library Association's announcement at the White House summit of The Librarian's Guide to Cyberspace for Parents and Kids, a "comprehensive brochure and Web site combining Internet terminology, safety tips, site selection advice and more than 50 of the most educational and entertaining sites available for children on the Internet." In Reno v. ACLU, we noted that Federal and state governments are already vigorously enforcing existing obscenity, child pornography, and child solicitation laws on the Internet. In addition, Internet users must affirmatively seek out speech on the Internet; no one is caught by surprise. In fact, many speakers on the Net provide preliminary information about the nature of their speech. The ACLU's site on America Online, for example, has a message on its home page announcing that the site is a "free speech zone." Many sites offering commercial transactions on the Net contain warnings concerning the security of Net information. Sites containing sexually explicit material often begin with a statement describing the adult nature of the material. Chat rooms and newsgroups have names that describe the subject being discussed. Even individual e-mail messages contain a subject line. The preliminary information available on the Internet has several important components that distinguish it from all the ratings systems discussed above: (1) it is created and provided by the speaker; (2) it helps the user decide whether to read any further; (3) speakers who choose not to provide such information are not penalized; (4) it does not result in the automatic blocking of speech by an entity other than the speaker or reader before the speech has ever been viewed. Thus, the very nature of the Internet reveals why more speech is always a better solution than censorship for dealing with speech that someone may find objectionable. It is not too late for the Internet community to slowly and carefully examine these proposals and to reject those that will transform the Internet from a true marketplace of ideas into just another mainstream, lifeless medium with content no more exciting or diverse than that of television. Civil libertarians, human rights organizations, librarians and Internet users, speakers and providers all joined together to defeat the CDA. We achieved a stunning victory, establishing a legal framework that affords the Internet the highest constitutional protection. We put a quick end to a fire that was all but visible and threatening. The fire next time may be more difficult to detect and extinguish. [...] Credits The principal authors of this white paper are Ann Beeson and Chris Hansen of the ACLU Legal Department and ACLU Associate Director Barry Steinhardt. Additional editorial contributions were provided by Marjorie Heins of the Legal Department, and Emily Whitfield of the Public Education Department. This report was prepared by the ACLU Public Education Department: Loren Siegel, Director; Rozella Floranz Kennedy, Editorial Manager; Ronald Cianfaglione, Designer. Copyright 1997, The American Civil Liberties Union

1 0

Shor's Algorithms: Mad, Bad and Dangerous
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From a WSJ nook review today of "The Fabirc of Reality," by David Deutsch (Allan lane, 390 pp., $29.95): Using something called "Shor's algorithm," a quantum computer can factor giant numbers and thereby break secret codes that no conventional computer could touch. The only way it could do this, Mr Deutsch argues, is by distributing its operations over many parallel universes. "To those who cling to a single-universe world-view," he writes with evident asperity," I issue the challenge: *explain how Shor's algorithms works.*" Combining the many-universes notion with quantum probablity, and adding elements of Darwinism and Karl Popper's theory of knowledge, Mr. Deutsch apsires to nothing less than a complete understanding of "the fabric of reality." Arrogant in tone and marred by leaps of logic, his book nonetheless bristles with subversive insights about virutal reality, time travel, mathematical certainty and free will. Intellectually speaking, Mr. Deutsch is mad, bad and dangerous to know.

1 0

TEST [Ignore]
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test

1 0

Re: Exit Remailer Suggestion
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ACTIVE Maybe your remailing software could connect to a URL like this and imitate the action of typing in mail. But it might have to login first. Hotmail asks you to log out if you don't plan to use the system any more for a while. So it seems like it keeps some kind of record of who is logged in. A good project would be to make an exit remailer whose only job was to choose from a random list of hotmail accounts and redirect mail. It wouldn't have to have a lot of complicated cryptography, it would just be for the last step. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Commerce/Reinsch: Encryption's in the Federal Spotlight
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Encryption's In The Federal Spotlight >(08/05/97; 9:00 a.m. EDT) >By Darryl K. Taft, Computer Reseller News > >WASHINGTON -- President Clinton is determined to push electronic >commerce forward, but when it comes to encryption, some safeguards need >to remain in place because of law enforcement and national security >concerns, said William Reinsch, the U.S. Department of Commerce's >undersecretary for export administration. > >Speaking at the National Computer Security Association's (NCSA) >Electronic Commerce Security conference here, Reinsch reiterated that >the >president and U.S. policy favors an electronic marketplace that is not >regulated by the government. > >"It's obvious our policies about encryption is a piece of the large >puzzle that >doesn't quite fit our definition of a free market," said Reinsch, >adding, "The >increased use of encryption carries with it serious risks for public >safety and >our national security. Any policy on encryption must address these risks >as >well if it is to be in the national interest. Our policy provides that >balance by >working in close consultation with the private sector and by working >with the >market, not against it." > >William Murray, an executive consultant with Deloitte & Touche, >disagreed. >Murray said the present government policy favors security and ease of >investigation over crime prevention and "the lawless over the law >abiding. I >know of no criminals who are worried about the administration's >policies, but >my law-abiding clients are." > >Murray, who also spoke at the NCSA conference, said he believed the >government's policy is "sowing so much fear, uncertainty and doubt that >it is >the single most incapacitating thing we have to deal with." > >Meanwhile, Reinsch outlined several areas where he said he felt the >administration's policies regarding export control and key management >are >making a difference. Reinsch said new regulations creating a license >exemption that allows recoverable encryption products of any strength >and >key length to be exported freely after a single review by the Department >of >Commerce, the Department of Justice and the Defense Departments. > >To encourage the development of recoverable encryption products, the >government created a special two-year liberalization period during which >companies may export 56-bit DES or equivalent products, provided they >show that they are working to develop the key management infrastructure >envisioned by the administration, Reinsch said. > >Perhaps the best gauge of industry response to the administration >policies has >been the flow of applications for exports, Reinsch said. In the seven >months >since the policy went into effect, the Commerce department received more >than 100 license applications for exports, valued at more than $500 >million. >In addition, Reinsch said 33 companies have submitted plans on how they >will build key recovery products, and the Commerce department approved >29 of them with more to come. "None have been rejected," Reinsch said, >noting that he could only name the companies that have already announced >their applications, such as Netscape Communications, IBM, Trusted >Information Systems and Digital Equipment. > >Reinsch said the market continues to be confusing because "companies >might >say one thing in private with the government and then take a totally >different >position publicly." Murray said, "The government does the same thing." > >Moreover, Reinsch said industry concerns that foreign availability of >encryption products appear to be exaggerated. "We do not yet see >widespread foreign use of encryption," he said. "We've discovered that >every >country is going through the same issues we are." > > >

1 0

Export Tax vs ITAR as a compromise ...
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How about this as a political compromise ... 1. Allow any export of crypto. 2. Tax crypto exports heavily, say 25% or something like that, unless key recovery (or some other GAK-ish feature) is part of the product. For instance, structuring the taxes so that ... GAK-only products get taxed 0% GAK-optional products get taxed 20% non-GAK products get taxed 25% 3. Give this revenue upside to the FBI/CIA/NSA/NRO. Internet commerce products alone would bring in shit loads of revenue for these agencies. And, as a side-benefit for these agencies, many companies will opted for GAK just for export tax reasons. This, of course, will not please the crypto-purists, but crypto is just one of many areas where the government is feeling like it is losing control. And while that attitude is just infantile, we have to be realistic about those very human people and very human organizations who have a tough job to do. As much as I hate ITAR, I feel really bad for the NSA. ---- 1. Fundamentally, I only oppose ITAR on First Amendment grounds: I should be able to write any program I can type, and I should be able to give that program out. This is computer speech, but it sure is speech. Therefore, my personal interest is to perserve that freedom. (If I happen to write a book about dangerous chemicals or explosives [write crypto code], why should I be held criminally liable if a terrorist buys my book [downloads my source code] or steals it from a library [intercepts an E-Mail containing the sources].) 2. My guess is that the NSA has NOT really advanced the state of the art of crypto much. I suspect they have capabilities that are maybe one or two orders of magnitude (in terms of art, not pure bruteforce resources) ahead of us common folks, but we can crank up the computational complexity without a wink, and then, they are just helpless. One particular rumoroid/factoid worth keeping in mind is that they have succeeded in the past, not just by being smarter, but also by dumbing-down everyone else. Sooner or later, that part of the strategy will no longer work. 3. There is something to be said for controlling export and import of products when the rest of the world is not using a economic system quite like ours. There is also something to be said for controlling export of products that might reduce our national strategic advantage (whatever that means). Of course, there is also self-delusion, and, if I were to assume the FBI/NSA is being completely honest, self-delusion is what they seem to be falling back on. I mean, REALLY now, if you can't control huge cabinets of supercomputers (oops ... I guess they are just desktop pizza boxes now, aren't they?), how are you going to control bits? Ern

3 2