December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Apachessl (was your mail)
by Jeff Hupp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 3 Dec 95 at 11:41, Laszlo Vecsey wrote: : > > Competing with Netscape is obviously something that's easier said than : > > done. But we ought to consider the strategic importance of having robust, : > : > I hate to repeat myself, but sometimes people don't listen. : > http://www.c2.org/apachessl/ : : I don't see how you can charge for a commercial versions of ApacheSSL. : Isn't it protected by the GNU license agreement? Or is the idea that by : registering ApacheSSL you still get the software for free but you are : required to pay for support. Go read the GNU license. Nothing prevents selling the programs, nothing prevents selling modifications of the programs. The major restraint is that you have to provide source. Now, from what I read of the page, that is being done. Personally, I would prefer to see the whole thing given away, and if I had done it, it would be. But he (or his contractors / employees ) did the work that went into modifying it, and if he want's to sell that work he bloody well can. -- JHupp(a)gensys.com |For PGP Public Key: http://gensys.com |finger jhupp(a)gensys.com Does history recorde any case in which the majority was right?

2 1

Re: info?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 3 Dec 95 at 22:28, j.miranda3(a)genie.com wrote: > Can you send me information about your organization? > > --Joseph Miranda Sure, Joe! We were founded several thousand years ago, have had chapters in virtually all societies and cultures beyond the truly primitive ones. Some of our members founded the United States of America some time back -- maybe you've heard of it? We have initiation rites that often involve learning arcane and complex formulae from thick books, we have secret handshakes, decoder rings, and we often like to roast our victims over a slow fire. There's hardly anything that goes on in the world that our members don't affect, and still, the society at large doesn't really know we're here. If you're looking for a secret cabal well, gee, you've come to the right place! If you'd like an interesting and colorful brochure containing all the details and benefits of membership, just pick up the phone, call your mother, and ask for one! Thank you for inquiring about the International Gourmet Cooking Society! Salsa Sam

2 1

Re: Info on Netscape's key escrow position
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jsw(a)netscape.com" "Jeff Weinstein" 2-DEC-1995 19:58:15.80 E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > I believe that the central question at hand is whether Netscape will > incorporate mandatory GAK into any of its products if you have an economic > (governmental purchase) rather than physical (governmental threat of violence) > reason to do so. I would hope that the upcoming statement will clarify this > position, and in the proper direction. If the government wants to purchase software for its own use that implements key escrow, why it that bad? The whole point of our anti-GAK position is that government mandated key escrow is bad. If individuals, companies, or government agencies want to escrow their own keys, with the escrow agents of their own choosing, I have not problem. Its only when the government make the escrow and the agent mandatory that I've got a problem. -------------------- I apologize for my lack of clarity. I would agree with you on voluntary escrow. My meaning in "governmental purchase" is that governments may use tactics such as directing purchases to companies that cooperate with their agenda. In other words, instead of properly spending the taxpayers' money on the best browser, server, etcetera available, they may exclude programs produced by a company not incorporating mandatory GAK. -------------------- I don't believe that Netscape will ship a product that mandates GAK unless it was required by law to do so. As long as it is legal to sell non-escrowed crypto products in this country or elsewhere, I think we will keep doing it, because that is what our customers want. -------------------- I am glad that your information leads you to this belief. However, I would still prefer that the official company statement include a clear section on this matter. (I would also, of course, prefer that this section be clearly against GAK; Jim Clark's claim that there are any circumstances under which a private citizen's communications should be tapped gives me cause to doubt.) -Allen

1 0

Compromise on Cyberporn Legislation
by OpsAn＠gnn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just got this. Maybe there is some common-sense surfacing. COMPROMISE ON CYBERPORN LEGISLATION The fears of online service providers and civil liberties advocates that new federal telecommunications legislation would be too heavy-handed in its effort to keep "filthy," "lewd" and "indecent" material off of the network have been mitigated by compromise wording in the proposed legislation. The new language, offered by Washington State Republican congressman Rick White, restricts penalties of fine or imprisonment to persons who transmit material that is "harmful to children" (such as images of frontal nudity) rather than a more broadly worded target against making "indecent material" available to children. The compromise would give legal protection to online information and service providers who made good-faith efforts to keep restricted material away from children. (New York Times 2 Dec 95 A1)

1 0

No Subject
by dima＠cuix.pscu.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

|=========================Hello!=====================================| | My name is Dmitriy Stepanchuk and I'm student of Kentridge HS. | | I have an assignment for school to interview with an expert. | | My subject is Cellular Systems and how are they work. | | If you don't mind and are able to answer following question please | | fill up the blanks, and I will appreciate that. | |======================= Thank you!!! ===============================| Please put your Name: ..................................................................... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) What is a Cellular System? ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) How long is the distance between each cell? ..................................................................... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) What is the most important thing about using cell phones? ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) How do you program cell phones? Can you program the phone to another channel? ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) What is the frequency of the cell phone? ..................................................................... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Is it possible to get on the same channel for two phones? Why? ..................................................................... ..................................................................... ..................................................................... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) What percentage of the people in US are using cell phones? ..................................................................... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) What is the output power for the portable phones? ..................................................................... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) Is it possible to call toll-free numbers from cell phone? ..................................................................... --------------------------------------------------------------------- 10) Will I be able to use my cell phone in other countries? If not why? ..................................................................... ----- Don't forget to use "message quoting" when you reply ---------- +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ That's it!! Thank you very much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1 0

AOL DROPS RESTRICTION ON WORD "BREAST"
by OpsAn＠gnn.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

More Common Sense? AOL DROPS RESTRICTION ON WORD "BREAST" America Online, which has been making efforts to police its own service by purging obscene or vulgar expressions deemed to be offensive, has changed its mind about the word "breast" and reinstated it as an acceptable term of discussion. A contributor to a breast cancer bulletin board had called the purging of the word breast "outrageous and potentially life-threatening." (Atlanta Journal-Constitution 2 Dec 95 F7)

1 0

Re: Info on Netscape's key escrow position
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeff Weinstein wrote: > > I don't believe that Netscape will ship a product that mandates GAK > > unless it was required by law to do so. As long as it is legal to sell > > non-escrowed crypto products in this country or elsewhere, I think we > > will keep doing it, because that is what our customers want. E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: I am glad that your information leads you to this belief. However, I > would still prefer that the official company statement include a clear section > on this matter. I also would like to hear this. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Info on Netscape's key escrow position
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:02 PM 12/2/95 -0800, Jeff Weinstein wrote: > The whole point of our anti-GAK position is that > government mandated key escrow is bad. "Our" anti-GAK position. I would like to hear Jim Clark say "GAK is bad". I would also like to hear him, and you, refrain from using the phrase "key escrow" and instead use the phrase "Government Access to Keys". I draw your attention to the fact that Bill Gates did not use the intentionally misleading phrase "key escrow" in his book. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

2 1

Re: "Got a subpoena?"
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, jim bell wrote: > >> >On Thu, 30 Nov 1995, sameer wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > What about a court order to (a) start comprehensive logging, and (b) not >> >> > tell anyone under penalty of ______ . >> > >> >I am unaware of any authority for such an order. >> >> >> >> Aren't court orders part of the public record? I don't quite >> > >> >Yes, but court orders can be sealed pending further order of the court. >> >> Okay, maybe with your qualifications you can answer this. It has always >> mystified me why "the authorities" think they can engage in wiretapping >> without informing the person wiretapped that this has occurred, despite the >> fact that there was apparently never any precedent for this practice before >> the "wiretap era." > >Because Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act which >is codified, as amended, at 18 U.S.C. Section 2510 et seq. Section >2511(2)(a)(ii) states in part: "Notwithstanding any other law, providers >of wire or electronic communication service ... are authorized "are authorized"? You mean, NOT REQUIRED, but merely "authorized"? In any case, this doesn't explain why this is CONSTITUTIONAL. I hope you understand the difference. >to provide >information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by >law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications ... if such >provider ... has been provided with [a court order or a certification by >an appropriate official that a court order isn't required ...]. I realize that a phone company might not normally be expected to refuse to cooperate, but the way the thing above is written, they are merely "authorized" to do something, they are not required to do it. >> In addition, I would like to be able to figure out a method to allow the >> de-facto disclosure of such activities, and to in fact force the phone >> company to do so, if they are asked to tap my or anyone else's phone. It >> occurred to me that even if there was a prohibition on explicitly revealing >> that such a tap exists, it should be possible to require the telephone >> company to certify that no tap exists, and to require that this >> certification will be followed by an explicit and immediate de-certification >> message the moment the phone company is unable to maintain such >> certification. The receipt of such a letter/fax/email will indicate that a >> tap has been placed, despite the fact that it will not say so. > >Sorry. > >In subsection B of the the statute I quoted above, it states in >part: "No provider of wire or electronic communication service ... shall >disclose the existence of any interception ... with respect to which the >person has been furnished a court order or certification ... except as >may be otherwise required by legal process and then only after prior >notification to the Attorney General or .... Any such disclosure shall >render such person liable for the civil damages provided for in section >2520. Sorry, I don't think that's a satisfactory answer. First, it would presumably be possible to disclose the WIRETAP ORDER without explicitly disclosing the existence of the "interception" as stated above. Admittedly it would amount to the same thing from the standpoint of the person wiretapped, but as far as I can see it would not LEGALLY be the same thing. The letter from the phone company will state: "We have received a wiretap order from the court listed below. We have not YET acted on that order. We are not disclosing the existence of any interception, and we cannot legally do that. You are forewarned!" Or, more coyly: "Normally, we can reassure customers that their telephone lines are not being wiretapped by the police. However, during the period of January 15, 1996 through January 30, 1996 we can no longer give you that assurance. Please take care during this period." Note that I am assuming the willingness of the phoneco to be UNCOOPERATIVE, at least according to "the spirit of the rules." They could still cooperate according to the LETTER of the law. > No cause of action shall lie against in any court against any >provider ... for providing information ... in accordance with the terms >of a court order or certification under this chapter." > >Thus providing evidence of that one of the uses of lawyers is to [attempt >to close loopholes. Which is an excellent reason for implementing my idea, "Assassination Politics."

2 1

Re: Diskless "Eunuchs" Machines Likely to Fail
by James M. Cobb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Friend, 12 03 95 Edupage reports: SUN PLANS JAVA-LIKE MICROKERNEL Sun Microsystems is already working on a microkernel-like operating system to run low-tech "Internet appliances." Dubbed Java OS, Sun's chief technical officer Eric Schmidt calls it the "natural next step" for Java. The new software will "take the Java classes and put them on the mini- mum OS functionality you need. You can add additional functionality by writing in Java," he says. It will require only 4 to 8 Mbytes of memory, and will not support Windows applications or other programs that make large demands on system memory. "This thing doesn't come with Sound Blaster and speakers. If you need a PC, buy a PC," says Schmidt. (Information Week 4 Dec 95 p104) The condescending tone illustrates the points made by wfgodot(a)iquest.com on 11 30 95: It seems that many corporate types are fixated on the idea of tractable and predictable consumers. [snip] The approach to understanding the actual dynamics of why people are and will increasingly come into this space and what they will want to do once they get there is deficient for many. [snip] Others are puzzled, or are overtly threatened by the idea of potential consumer's who are also content producers. Cordially, Jim

1 0