December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

News from the Front (August Issue)
by news＠sldc.ffg.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An update to our customers and friends on happenings at ----------------------------------------------------------------------- F O R E F R O N T - Taking the Chaos out of the 'Net http://www.ffg.com Newsletter 8/25/97 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Contents: I. Special Offer II. News from the 'Front III. Hot Tip ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Special Offer Due to the popularity of the WebBundle, we're bringing it back for a limited time. ForeFront would like to offer you, our V.I.P.'s, a chance to get ALL of our Web products (WebSeeker, WebWhacker, and WebPrinter) at a discount. Get the Web Bundle for only $89.50 for a limited time. - http://store.ffg.com/webbundle/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- II. News from the 'Front Thanks to everyone for signing up for the Internet Research Course. ForeFront releases their second FREE e-mail course on Off-line Browsing. Sign-up for our no-cost course at http://www.ffg.com/courses WebWhacker 3.0 for Macintosh released. The worlds first off-line browser for Macintosh just got better. See the new features at: http://www.ffg.com/whacker Educational WebWhacker enters Beta! Ed Whacker brings WebWhacker 3.0 to the classroom. Whack Internet pages and share them with an entire classroom with a single click. The teacher can launch browsers on every station in the classroom with one button. Beta testers get 50% off the retail price when Ed Whacker is released. If you'd like to join the beta program, visit: - http://www.ffg.com/whacker/edwhackerbeta.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Tip o' the Day WebSeeker's Filtering is its most powerful feature. If you are looking for something very specific on the Internet, start WebSeeker and enter your keywords. Then choose "Filter Find". FilterFind is slower, but usually worth the wait. Every word on every page is indexed allowing you to quickly narrow your search. Choose the Filter button (funnel with 3 dots after it) and enter any specific query. You can use AND, OR, NOT, NEAR and other powerful features to narrow your search until you find EXACTLY what you are looking for. No other program gives you the power of a WebSeeker search. If you don't have WebSeeker 3 then try it now! - http://www.ffg.com/seeker/ If you have an earlier version of WebSeeker then upgrade now! - http://www.ffg.com/seeker/wsupgrade.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsletter is only sent to those who requested the newsletter and those who downloaded, registered, or evaluated our software. If you wish to unsubscribe from the ForeFront newsletter mailing list, please visit http://www.ffg.com/press to Unsubscribe.

1 0

Freezing assets
by anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How does the U.S. government go about freezing the assets of foreign nationals? Which kinds of assets are the most and least amenable to freezing? By what legal and procedural mechanisms does one "freeze" the securities, real estate, etc. of foreign nationals? thanks, zylof

1 0

Re: CAST key size (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Peter Gutmann ----- >From cpunks Mon Aug 25 08:03:32 1997 From: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) To: hvdl(a)sequent.com Subject: Re: CAST key size Reply-To: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz X-Charge-To: pgut001 X-Authenticated: relaymail v0.9 on cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:39:58 (NZST) Message-ID: <87250919812278(a)cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk >Just a quick question on the keysize of the CAST algorithm. According to >the bible of Bruce, CAST uses a 64 bit keysize, while in the manual of >PGP 5.0 (page 89), Phill states that CAST uses a 128 bit keysize... > >Am I missing something? "CAST" isn't a particular algorithm, but a design process for creating algorithms. The particular CAST instantiation used in PGP 5 is either CAST-128 or CAST5, depending on who you ask. Other versions of CAST abound, including an earlier one used by MS for unknown purposes which had a 64-bit key, probably the one Bruce is referring to. Peter. ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Gutmann -----

1 0

Stay issued; modified stay to follow
by Cindy Cohn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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. 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. 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. 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. Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

5 4

DoJ press release on Bernstein case (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from John Gilmore ----- >From cpunks Tue Aug 26 23:08:09 1997 Message-Id: <199708270251.TAA15101(a)toad.com> X-Authentication-Warning: toad.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: bernstein-announce(a)toad.com Subject: DoJ press release on Bernstein case Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:51:24 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Reply-To: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk Forwarded-by: Shari Steele <ssteele(a)eff.org> Department of Justice For Immediate Release Tuesday, August 26, 1997 CIV (202) 616-2777 TDD (202) 514-1888 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT STILL REVIEWING DISTRICT COURT DECISION ON EXPORT CONTROLS ON ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Justice Department said today it is considering what further legal measures it will take following yesterday's ruling by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco that certain aspects of the government's regulations on the export of encryption software are unconstitutional. Another federal court upheld the export controls on encryption software. The Administration is committed to promoting the legitimate use of encryption. Through encryption--or the coding of messages--businesses can protect trade secrets, hospitals can safeguard medical records, and individuals can be assured that personal messages on the information superhighway remain private. But, as President Clinton stated upon issuing an Executive Order on this subject on November 15, 1996, the use of encryption products by unfriendly parties outside the United States can jeopardize the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States, and public safety of U.S. citizens. Judicial proceedings in Bernstein v. Department of State are not yet concluded, and the decision governs only that case. In March 1996, in another pending case in Washington, D.C., Karn v. Department of State, the District Court ruled that export controls on encryption software are constitutional under the First Amendment and serve important interests of the United States. That case is still pending to consider export controls on encryption now administered by the Commerce Department. Until this issue is resolved, export controls on encryption software remain in place. Individuals or companies wishing to export encryption software by any means must continue to adhere to applicable export licensing controls on such software before exporting it abroad. ### 97-351 ----- End of forwarded message from John Gilmore -----

1 0

Crypto Export Restrictions are Unconstitutional (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from John Gilmore ----- >From cpunks Tue Aug 26 13:46:02 1997 Message-Id: <199708261734.KAA06596(a)toad.com> X-Authentication-Warning: toad.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: bernstein-announce(a)toad.com Subject: Crypto Export Restrictions are Unconstitutional Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 10:34:53 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Reply-To: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk CRYPTO EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL Professor Bernstein is free to publish his software San Francisco, August 26, 1997 - The Federal District Court here struck down Commerce Department export restrictions on the privacy technology called encryption yesterday, concluding that "the encryption regulations are an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." For the first time, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ordered the government not to prosecute or harass the plaintiff, Professor Daniel Bernstein, and those who use or publish his encryption software. The decision knocks out a major part of the Clinton Administration's effort to force companies to design government surveillance into computers, telephones, and consumer electronics. "This is wonderful news," said Prof. Bernstein. "I hope I can get some of my ideas published before they change the law again." The decision is a victory for free speech, academic freedom, human rights, and the prevention of crime. American scientists and engineers will now be free to collaborate with others in the United States and in foreign countries. This will enable them to build a new generation of tools for protecting the privacy and security of our communications. "Once again, it took a federal court to sort out technology and the Constitution," said Lori Fena, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which backed the suit. "Let this decision signal the other two branches of government that when making laws pertaining to the Internet, they must honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution." The decision is strategic because the Clinton Administration has been using the export restrictions to influence domestic privacy policy. Companies that agree to build "key recovery" technology into their products are exempt from most of the restrictions. Key recovery, a follow-on to the Clipper Chip, is designed to give the government untraceable access to users' private information. The Federal District Court of the Northern District of California last December struck down the ITAR, a set of encryption restrictions enforced by the State Department. A few weeks later, the Government created virtually identical restrictions in the Commerce Department's Bureau of Export Administration (BXA). Yesterday's decision invalidates the new restrictions, stating, "the encryption regulations issued by the BXA appear to be even less friendly to speech interests than the ITAR." She warns that "the government cannot avoid the constitutional deficiencies of its regulations by rotating oversight of them from department to department," though concluding that she "does not believe that such was the intent here." "Our right to create, use, and deploy encryption come from our basic civil rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom from arbitrary search, due process of law, and privacy. Judge Patel has affirmed those roots in the First Amendment," philosophizes John Gilmore, Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder. "Our Founding Fathers used encryption -- and even invented some -- and did not intend any ``crypto exceptions'' to the Bill of Rights." DETAILS OF MONDAY'S DECISION In the heart of the ruling, "The court declares that the Export Administration Regulations . . . insofar as they apply to or require licensing for encryption and decryption software and related devices and technology, are in violation of the First Amendment on the grounds of prior restraint and are, therefore, unconstitutional as discussed above, and shall not be applied to plaintiff's publishing of such items, including scientific papers, algorithms or computer programs." The Court also held that the government's licensing procedure fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards. When the Government acts legally to suppress protected speech, it must reduce the chance of illegal censorship by the bureacrats involved, for example by making the government go to a judge to decide the issue. The EAR does not require this; in fact, it precludes it. "And most important, and most lacking, are any standards for deciding an application. The EAR reviews applications for licenses ``on a case-by-case basis'' and appears to impose no limits on agency discretion." The Court dissected the export controls' exemption for printed materials at length, calling it "so irrational and administratively unreliable that it may well serve to only exacerbate the potential for self-censorship." The government's "distinction between paper and electronic publication . . . makes little or no sense and is untenable." The Court not only declared that these regulations are invalid and unenforceable, but also prevented the Government from "threatening, detaining, prosecuting, discouraging, or otherwise interfering with plaintiff or any other person described . . . above in the exercise of their federal constitutional rights as declared in this order." The immediate effect of this decision is that Prof. Bernstein may publish his encryption software, and that others may read, use, publish and review it. In addition, others in industry are studying the court's analysis, and might decide to publish their own software on the Internet as well. Pretty Good Privacy, Inc, is one such company, which believes that future courts will find Judge Patel's reasoning persuasive. "We are particularly pleased the court has reconfirmed that computer programs, like other literary works, are accorded full protection under the First Amendment," said Bob Kohn, vice president and general counsel for Pretty Good Privacy. The final form of the judgment will be negotiated between the parties, and presented to the court within a week. The government could either seek an emergency appeal of the injunction, or take up to 60 days from the entry of judgment to appeal. ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS Lead counsel on the case is Cindy Cohn of the San Mateo law firm of McGlashan & Sarrail, who is offering her services pro bono. Major additional legal assistance is being provided by Shari Steele of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; Lee Tien of Berkeley; James Wheaton and Elizabeth Pritzker of the First Amendment Project in Oakland; and Robert Corn-Revere of the Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information. EFF is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and helped to collect members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is available from EFF's online archives at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ Scanned images of Monday's decision are available at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ Legal/970825_decision.images/ The full text of Monday's decision will soon be available at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ Legal/970825.decision Professor Daniel Bernstein will be building his new Constitutionally- protected cryptography web page at: http://pobox.com/~djb/crypto.html Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Attorney 301/375-8856, ssteele(a)eff.org John Gilmore, Founding Board Member 541/354-6541, gnu(a)toad.com Cindy Cohn, McGlashan & Sarrail 415/341-2585, cindy(a)mcglashan.com ----- End of forwarded message from John Gilmore -----

1 0

Bernstein decision is out! (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from John Gilmore ----- >From cpunks Tue Aug 26 09:26:49 1997 Message-Id: <199708261312.GAA02742(a)toad.com> X-Authentication-Warning: toad.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: bernstein-announce(a)toad.com, gnu(a)toad.com Subject: Bernstein decision is out! Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 06:12:24 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Reply-To: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk Judge Patel has made her decision, and it is up on the Web at http://www.eff.org/. We're still preparing the legal analysis, but the basic outline is that she declares the Commerce Dept. export-control scheme unconstitutional. She also issued an injunction against the Commerce Dept. preventing them from enforcing these regulations against Prof. Bernstein or others who distribute his software. More details later... John Gilmore ----- End of forwarded message from John Gilmore -----

1 0

Snuffle '97 Released / Re: Reuter on Bernstein Ruling
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Duvos wrote: > > Patel also issued a permanent injunction barring the government > > from enforcing the regulations against plaintiff Daniel Bernstein or anyone > > who sought to use, discuss or publish his encryption program. > Now that Snuffle has been around for a while, it's obviously time for > an upgrade. Might I suggest "Snuffle '95" with the DES, 3DES, RC5, > and IDEA options. I just uploaded "Snuffle '97" to replay.com. The new version includes source code for PGP 5.0, a JPEG of Hillary Clinton in the nude, and the predicted date of death for the lawyer who files the government appeal in the Bernstein case. Saddam Hussein liked "Snuffle '97" so much, he bought the company! SnuffleMonger

1 0

Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> wrote: >>Afterwards, a compensation arrangement is made between your >>protection company and the protection company of your victim. >Also, according to what I remember, the "protection company" was your >extended family. Pay up or face the wraith of all the deceased's >cousins, nephews, uncles, neices, aunts, maybe his kids. This seems to have been a common case, but it was not the rule. There were a limited number of franchises available for protection companies. Protection franchises were bought and sold like any other business. Like businesses, some did well and grew in size and value under the care of their stewards and others did not. The ability to change protection companies at will is important - it's what distinguishes this system from feudal "protection" systems where the "clients" are actually serfs. The Icelandic idea of the extended family did not map precisely to ours. Divorces were easily and commonly arranged. There was a lot of turnover and a lot of half-siblings around. There were some interesting adoption customs, too. People sometimes adopted children they liked, even if the parents were still living. This did not mean that the children didn't continue to live with the natural parents. But the adopting parent would help out here and there. (In "Njal's Saga", for example, an adopting parent beats up people for his adopted daughter and this causes no end of trouble.) Just Another Cypherpunk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNASrX/+1rw4IkyBFAQGkcgf/UPot2diIVhohhip4CQDpUnGdZZA9TCK6 OPAsNb01CekDk8fv0SThudb9jSf5/QFEkZ6OM/ts2f5hbpxwGx6zC+sMJ9oo+LsI 4odgrR2lbwdikgMBDoJ3FcJMOF9bKLnUPYBUUc/RwPP0b7Jj8FEfDxURu+yHAUR7 VRRxmtyWMHSp7j+2Ngz8Idu7CJHqUfekcuSdPKank3QaXO9nEDDnWsoWK94UWBrh ZJPYo1D1TgdP/0LxjoU4FH2Tq9AZYVrZ8jxXxDShzS2mVR9jhGu31HBcQ/povEYC w/BoG/6kA59bmfvV8odU/q5CM9vFuJmLb8Swtc7YZXal5a6v2KX5+g== =MFgT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

$5000 of Credit GUARANTEED - NO CREDIT CHECK/NO SSN REQUIRED
by guaranteedcredit＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If not interested, then please delete this message. $5000 WORTH OF CREDIT GUARANTEED!! * You Receive 2 Major Offshore Credit Cards! * A total of $5,000 worth of Credit @ 4.95% APR AND... * (optional) $10,000 - $15,000 Line of Credit (5.95% APR)!!! * Line of Credit could expand after 6 months to $25,000-$100,000!!! * NO Credit Check or Income Verification! * NO Social Security Number Required! * NO Deposits or Collateral Funds (Unsecured)!! * Bad Credit, No Credit, Bankruptcy, NO PROBLEM!!! * 3 x 6 forced matrix could earn you $6,941 (or more) per month!! * Complete Financial Privacy! * You will receive a $25 BONUS CHECK for every person that you personally sponsor. PAID WEEKLY!!! * Matrix participants will receive monthly commissions for all participants in your downline. IT'S EASY TO APPLY! Simply email to our autoresponder: offshorecard1(a)answerme.com and complete the Request Form with a payment in international money order of only $100.00. When you choose us to help you get an Offshore Card you're automatically put into a 3 x 6 forced matrix (forced meaning that if you fill one level, every person that signed up under your automatically goes on to fill your next level, and so on) could earn you $6941.00 per month! You will be paying $25 per month in dues to the club for services rendered. This $25 will be DEBITED EACH MONTH from your account, and will allow you to receive commission checks for the banking activities of every person in your downline! Matrix participants are recruited through a network of distributors worldwide. Participants earn monthly commissions on the dues ($25) paid by every member in good standing under them in a 3x6 forced matrix. Monthly commission schedule is as follows: Level 1 - 0% ($1.25) times 3 referrals on this level...[3x$0]..........$0.00 Level 2 - 10% ($2.50) times 9 referrals on this level....[9x$5].......$22.50 Level 3 - 5% ($1.25) times 27 referrals on this level....[27x$1.25].$33.75 Level 4 - 10% ($2.50) times 81 referrals on this level..[81x$2.50]..$202.50 Level 5 - 20% ($5.00) times 243 referrals on this level.[243x$5.00].$1215.00 Level 6 - 30% ($7.50) times 729 referrals on this level.[729x$7.50].$5467.00 Total: $6941.25 Per Month!! (referrals are the number of people underneath you in the matrix; a combination of the people you refer, and the people they refer, etc.) All the money earned as a result of matrix participation is deposited AS A PAYMENT to the member's credit card account! If their commissions exceed the minimum monthly payment, no further payments are required that month. (i.e. enroll 3 people in a month and you will more than likely have covered your minimum payment for anything you charge that month, just from the enrollee's bonuses! Develop a large downline, and your entire monthly charges could be ZEROED OUT each month!), or better yet, you will receive $6941.00 CREDIT in your account!! NO REPORTING OF YOUR CARD ACTIVITY TO CREDIT BUREAUS: Since these cards are not issued through the North American banking institutions and credit reporting systems, the existence and details of your account activity are not disclosed to government agencies or credit bureaus. ASSET PROTECTION: Your card deposits are virtually unreachable by creditors. PRESTIGE: Impress your friends and business clients with your card issued by an offshore bank of international reputation. Matrix participants agree to pay $300.00 per annum for services rendered by our club. This amount is charged to your credit card in 12 monthly installments of $25.00 each, and is then re-distributed among active Matrix Participants according to the above schedule. For an application & FAQ, email our autoresponder at: offshorecard1(a)answerme.com P.S. - EXTRA OFFER - If you'd like information on obtaining 2 MORE Guaranteed Cards (same amount of credit & opportunity to earn money), please email application1(a)answerme.com and we'll send off the applications to you ASAP! Thank you for your time.

1 0