December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: No Subject
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tallpaul(a)pipeline.com" 10-MAR-1996 15:48:49.98 >In other words, this or that person acts as a (perhaps temporary) remailer >from their regular account, gets the material encrypted, and massages it in >various ways before sending it out. The point is to increase entropy by >creating the technological base for an enormous proliferation of >remailer/anon tech at the lowest possible price. >Internationally know "elite" (in the good sense of the word) remailers are >by definition known, and thus easy to monitor. Mixmaster etc sites popping >up from the home computers in the rec rooms of suburbia are not. I have been considering the problem of making sure that these non-elite remailers are actually used by enough people to defeat traffic analysis, be useful, et al. Just posting the location & key in a public place is good, but leads to the possibility of somebody cracking down (especially if it's in someplace like Singapore). The alternatives are: A. Send out the address in some form of reply block, along with the key. If someone wants to use the remailer, they include the reply block at the appropriate stage. Thus, the remailer decoding the reply block (probably an "elite" remailer) will know the address, but none others will. B. Send it to one remailer with a setup such that it will encrypt some percentage of messages coming through it with the key of the "stealthed" remailer and mail them to that remailer. Again, whoever operates that remailer will (if they look) know the location. This can also add length to chains even when others don't know the stealth remailer exists. C. Send it to one of the web-page or other automatic chaining facilities with their automatically using it in some percentage of the cases. Again, this trusts the maintainers of the chaining facility. In all of these cases, one would not want the stealth remailer to be the last one in the chain. But such remailers can still help make things more difficult for an attacker. -Allen

1 0

Very boring test
by uunet!in2.uu.net!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!interramp.com!usenet＠warwick.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there anybody *out* there? -- .signature under construction

1 0

Re: Not a good idea...
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) >We need to be very careful here. A service like "SurfWatch," voluntarily >used by others, has entered into no contracts with sites to meet defined >standards of what should and shouldn't be blocked. It is essentially a >"review" service, like a reviewer of books, movies, restaurants, etc. Sure, >some books, movies, and restaurants are "hurt" by negative reviews, but >this is life in a free society. It has not yet reached the point in these >Beknighted States that a bad review can be the basis of a tort (though I >could be wrong...nothing would surprise me these days). One wonders if an ISP (say, Prodigy or AOL) that used SurfWatch to automatically filter everything could be liable if they filtered something that wasn't against their policies (due to overly accepting SurfWatch's or TimWatch's ratings) - non-provision of service? I'd guess they have some clause or another in their normal contract w/users to try to prevent such, but framing it so as to cover such without also basically making it a non-contract (no agreement to provide anything) could be difficult. -Allen

1 0

Symantec Q&A passwords
by Joshua E. Hill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well... this is only vaguely on topic, but: Does anyone know how to circumvent a password on a Q&A (3.0) database? Symantec said that they would do it for $75... I would imagine that means they use a trivial encryption system... Does anyone know if this is the case? (and if so, what system do they use?). Thank You, Joshua Hill -----------------------------Joshua E. Hill----------------------------- | Murphy's Military Laws: | | 3. Friendly fire ain't. | -------jehill@<gauss.elee|galaxy.csc|w6bhz|tuba.aix>.calpoly.edu--------

1 0

re: PA
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:42 PM 3/10/96, "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" > Long enough ago that I have forgotten the citation, I read an even older > SF story about explosive necklaces worn by politicians. If their >electronic > agreement percentage (and think this was in the sixties folks) dropped > too low, a vacancy occured. We talked here a while back about the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta where there was a "court exploder" or something, whose job it was to blow up the king should the monarch become too egregious in conduct. The limiting factor was that the "exploder", or whatever, was the person who would inherit the king's job. ;-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0

Re: rhetorical trickery
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:19 PM 3/10/96 -0800, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >please, will people stop sending me responses like the above? do you >understand how the American legal system works? a person cannot >be prosecuted without evidence. evidence cannot be illegally obtained. >a person is not required to testify against oneself. these are all >basic long-established cornerstones of our legal system. I'm sure that my friend who tried to argue about a speeding ticket in New Jersey, had the bones around his eye socket broken and then was arrested for "Resisting Arrest" will be comforted to hear this. (BTW, a mutual friend was a witness and confirmed the story. I can't think of any reason they would have to lie to me about the facts.) Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Re: Lawz to be.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:20 PM 3/10/96 -0500, Matt Blaze wrote: >While I don't agree with some of the conclusions you reached in your note, By now you should have seen my most recent item, an editorial by George Will. The case he describes should make it clear to you that the abuse of property owned by an "innocent victim" does not protect that person from confiscation of his property. Or did you think it would? >I certainly agree that the Leahy bill would be better for cryptography >without this crime. I hope that section gets further narrowed (or removed >altogether), but based on discussions I've had with various Senate staffers, >I'm not optimistic that it will be. Okay, here are some questions you should be asking them: 1. Why was this one highly negative section added to what is otherwise apparently a good bill? Whose fingerprints are on it? 2. "All" bills can be amended. "Why not this section?!?" 3. "Why is this section so ambiguous?" 4. What crimes, EXACTLY, do you intend to prosecute using this section? 5. Can you list any examples of REAL incidents that have already occurred that would be in violation of this section if it were already in law? (Surely they know of some, right?!?) If they can think of no such examples, ask them why they are putting a "useless provision" into a law and why is it so important that it be there that we can't have it removed. 6. And finally, "what are you guys afraid of?" >If you feel strongly about this, You don't know how strongly I feel about this. > I urge you to lobby your Senators >(and representatives, since there's also a House version of the bill) and >tell them exactly what you like and don't like about this legislation, as >I am doing with mine. >-matt If that is all that I was planning to do to stop this bill, I would consider myself to be a slacker. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com Klaatu Burada Nikto... Which should stop this damn bill if you guys don't. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMUOtKfqHVDBboB2dAQGDKwQAm5rQbtAdaIByJGRKYW3KlxsNGGTKzuB6 U75G5KF8TgIuJKICrkGRjwG0/vnZo8kGuA9N1oCzwqQpTN4swMoOi26e8t/7DPim ZU3V4xGj9sUlopBBcN0pC8ksUC5ADB1K54nDfmbfEee0tL6GxstTgLKepIH2yC1j D7/2UGFbHnc= =vU5b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM radio?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:26 PM 3/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >> >> Subject asks it. I'm not a HAM, but still curious. Wonder if anyone >> has brought this to Leahy's attention... >> >> Comments from the packet folx on the list? > >Non-cleartext has been forbidden for last 60 years anyhow. Yes, but the law _might_ have the side-effect of changing that. It'd be real pleasant if it does... I suspect the best way to make that happen would be to say "shhhh" any time anyone proposes mentioning the topic to a politician.... #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM radio?
by Mutant Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject asks it. I'm not a HAM, but still curious. Wonder if anyone has brought this to Leahy's attention... Comments from the packet folx on the list? --Rob

3 2

Re: SurfWatch
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 9-MAR-1996 21:00:29.15 >I plan to taper off on all responses to this thread about SurfWatch and >ratings services. Various sides have expressed their opinions about what >courts and governments will demand, and others respond by saying, "I >disagree. They can pass a law..." or "I disagree. The government is >powerless," etc. I can see your reasons for doing so. The discussion of how to use ratings systems in ways not intended, so long as the government isn't able to get in the way of doing so, is probably more interesting. >In the terms of the lawyers--from what I picked up during my time on the >Cyberial list--a requirement that words be rated before they can be >distributed would not pass Constitutional muster. This does not mean that >one's words will not trigger prosecutions, lawsuits, treason trials, etc. >What it means is that "prior restraint" is frowned upon (recall "The >Progressive" H-bomb case of about 15 years ago, where a court subjected >this magazine to prior restraint...a rare occurrence, later overturned. A >more recent case involves "Business Week," and is still unresolved). I may check with a lawyer myself on this issue. I had known that prior restraint, as in restraining something from being published at all, was considered unconstitutional by all but the nut-case authoritarians. But I had thought that the question of rating was still up in the air - the TV industry seems to have decided not to fight the V-chip in court, for instance. Since the government seems to have decided that it can remove "indecent" material, as judged by them, from the purview of minors, it could argue that a mandated rating system is the "least restrictive" way to do so - ignoring that others can use it for further restrictions. >By the way, who does the rating in this scenario? As others have also >noted, if I am rating my own pages, and rate them as "suitable for all >ages," but Jesse Helms disagrees, what charges can be filed? That I was not >a good enough judge of the material? That my opinions differed from Senator >Helms'? Well, I and Senator Helms have differing views on what is "obscene" and what isn't - and a court is more likely to go with his (prevailing community norms and all that nonsense) in deciding whether to prosecute me. >"Voluntary self-rating" runs into problems, such as this example. One is >left with ratings by _others_, e.g.. ratings boards, and even then there >are variations of this same problem. The "Lesbian Alliance" is going to >have different ideas of what children should be exposed to than the >"Christian Crusade" will ideas about. Who is right? ("What is truth?") There's also the lawsuit issue. If somebody decides that I haven't rated my words high enough to keep "indecent" material from their children, they may sue - and "community norms" will be used to decide. >> D. The government in a country such as China uses rating systems to >>help them filter. >Doesn't have much to do with _my_ words or pages. It ain't the business of >the U.S. court system--which is what we're talking about here--to worry >about what some Maoists think is proper for young cadres to read. I was discussing what was ethical for the proponents of rating systems to do, not what they should be _allowed_ to do. In other words, I am in favor of allowing anyone who wishes to create a rating system, just as I am in favor of allowing anyone who wishes to talk a bunch of utter trash about Holocaust Revisionism. But I wish to discourage people from doing either (or at least in the first case from creating systems that can be misused in such an obvious fashion). >I disagree with the overall conclusions of this line of reasoning. (Though >the "children are not the property of their parents" point is heavy >phrasing, and hard to take issue with directly, due to the language.) I use it as the anarcho-capitalists do who claim that taxation is theft. It gets the attention. I am angered by modern trends in favor of _either_ parental (parents deciding their kids shouldn't learn about evolution, or about sex) or societal (curfews et al). I am also angered by cases like the Joey Buttafuocco (sp?) one, in which he was convicted for having sex with a (definitely willing) minor who was decided to be sufficiently competent to be tried as an adult for committing murder. I had a set of decidedly overprotective parents myself, and I can trace lots of psychological damage from that. They did it out of love, but sometimes that just doesn't work. >In any case, while children are not for their parents to do with as they >please, a reasonable Schelling point has been that I will not force other >parents to expose their children to the teachings of Cthulhu if they will >not demand that my children sit through propaganda tapes about the joys of >homosexual sex. The status of children in a free society is a thorny issue, >but I reject the increasingly-prevalent notion that society knows what's >best and the government will decide what influences can be used with >children. A society which takes away this parental choice is a terrible >society. I tend to conclude that neither parents nor "society" should have any more reign over their children than absolutely necessary. Parents have certain rights over their children which derive from their responsibilities over those children - i.e., to keep those children safe, get them educated so they can have freedoms like speech and press, et al. If the parent can't clearly show that the intervention into the child's life isn't necessary for that responsibility to be fulfilled, then the parent shouldn't be able to do that intervention any more than I should be able to claim that the CO2 being put out by a factory is harming me, and should be stopped, without a lot of evidence otherwise. >I see much of the debate about violence and sex in society and in the media >as being this kind of "battle for the hearts and minds" of children. I >don't want some sociologist telling me that "Terminator II" is "bad" for my >child but that "The Story of O" should be mandatory for my 11-year-old to >watch. I agree about the "mandatory" part; I simply want to make it an option for that child - not an option for the parent. -Allen

1 0