December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Vexatious Litigants (was: SurfWatch)
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > > From: IN%"stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com" "Bill Stewart" 10-MAR-1996 04:29:37.67 > > >Presumably, almost nobody in Europe is going to add these silly Yankee > >rating labels to their web pages, except a few commercial content providers > >who want to sell advertising or services into markets that block > >un-rated web pages. So schoolkids behind rating-mandatory sites > >will have to ask their teachers why the "World-Wide-Web" is just American --- > >"It's got All 50 States, Johnny!" <Exonive deleted>! > > The WWW consortium is approaching European governments about their > rating system - the one found at SafeSurf. > -Allen Disclaimer: I don't work on PICS and I don't speak for the consortium. Actually the European govts are far more likely to see labels being used. In the US a piece of crackpot legislaion has been passed which has some clearly unconstitutional parts. The ban on abortion related speach for example which the justice dept isn't going to defend in any way. I expect that the Exon amendment will eventually be ruled unconstitutional through being overbroad. The problem is that it is difficult to get people to do something voluntarily after ordering them to do so and being overuled by the courts. This is the kind of small minded, foot stomping politics that the US congress is famous for worldwide. In Europe the governments tend to be more aware of their impotence. There is also much less hysteria about kids seing pornography, the main concern is violence and in particular amoral US TV shows for kids, the sort where people beat each other up but nobody ever gets hurt. In France one can buy hard core porn in the supermarket. The govt. is far more concerned about foreign language material. The whole point about PICs is that it is not bound to a single rating scheme. I had a go at producing a spec for a rating scheme back in '94 but gave up since life is too short to waste. The Web is decentralised and anyone can set up shop in it. Now we have a scheme in which anyone can set up a rating scheme. So we will have the kook brigade filtering out material on evolution and the concerned parents preventing their five year olds from viewing the alt.tv.very.scary gifs. Actually this is the main point of the exercise. I can't think of any system which is going to defeat determined 14+ kids from finding porn but its a bit easier to stop the 7 and unders from accidentially seeing stuff that will give them nightmares. Phill - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMURLKSoZzwIn1bdtAQGeWgGA0n4wmvgI8F4UspSxmWJ3Q9C2+LaxVPl7 xy+H0/0QN66VneWZg+h+pNZd3kmLdgOj =+z3H -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Leahy and Mrs. Bemmis (now that's a subject line)
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

First, would like to comment that some people do not like some of my beliefs. Tough. Do try to be honest and consistant about them. One of them is that while the US is imperfect, it is better than anything else I have seen (and have seen more than a few) and has the potential to remain great. Do believe in the "sovereign right of nations" to be a fact. Also believe in human rights personally but do not expect governments to agree merely because I say so. Some favor direct action. I prefer the "theater of the absurd" & have found that most people are able to recognize absurdity when they see it, particularly if carried to extreems. Most of life is absurd to those who are able to really enjoy it. The Leahy bill is flawed in two areas. Sent a message with proposed wording to Sen. Leahy via his web page but have not gotten a response. Have a bad habit of reading laws without thought since this is how LEA and prosecutors are told to enforce them - as written, not as believed. If an area is vague, a court is required to decide how to interpret it, not LEA. If badly written *everyone* loses. At the same time am pragmatic enough to accept the idea that it will have no effect unless it passes and to be passed today it must have something like the criminalization statement. The goal here should not be to throw it out since that would simply cause the whole bill to fail, but to word it carefully enough that it satisfies those who reguire laws while being narrow enough to avoid exploitation. IMNSHO the best way to do that is to require that: 1) A felony occured (curiously misdemeanors were ommitted) and 2) That the individual to be charged was an active participant (before, during, or after the fact) and 3) That encryption was used in furtherance. Note: that in the US (1) and (2) seem sufficient for a criminal charge to be brought, so does (3) really add anything except words or possibly severity ? Seizure seems to be a great concern of the group with the point of the Bemmis Pontiac being brought up. For someone providing a free remailer, that is a valid concern since the first question a court might ask is "what was the motivation". I suspect that someone providing a remailer and charging a reasonable fee to all who might want to use the service might be in a much better position (not a lawyer so not allowed to know). One indicator might be easy to check: Has there ever been a seizure involving a rental car (Hertz, Avis, etc.) and if so, what was the disposition ? Warmly, Padgett

1 0

noise levels
by Perry E. Metzger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Noise levels have been rising fast again. I encourage people to think about whether things are on topic before they post. Perry

1 0

Re: Fertilizer & fuel oil as cause for suspicion - similar to cryptography?
by Silcock, Stephen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Friday 8th March Allen wrote: <quote> In the below article, the cops seem to be claiming that fuel oil, fertilizer, and bomb-making knowledge = illegal explosives possession. This idea doesn't make sense. Crypto relevance? An example of how governmental idiots are likely to take cryptography. -Allen ----------------- Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net Copyright &copy 1996 The Associated Press CORVALLIS, Ore. (Mar 8, 1996 11:09 a.m. EST) -- Ingredients for a fertilizer bomb like the one that killed 169 people in Oklahoma City were found on a farm along with bomb-making instructions, guns and drugs, police said. Four people were arrested on weapons and drug charges. Charges involving illegal explosives were expected to be filed later, police Sgt. Dennis Carson said Thursday. Officers seized a large quantity of fuel oil and the fertilizer ammonium nitrate, two key ingredients in the April 19 Oklahoma City bombing. "My understanding is it could have made a large bomb and a rather large explosion had it been detonated," Carson said. "All they had to do was mix the parts. It would take just a few minutes." He wouldn't say how much fertilizer was found in the raid Wednesday night near this city about 80 miles south of Portland. The fertilizer, found in an 8,000-square-foot barn, was removed in a state police bomb-squad truck. Carson said investigators were trying to determine whether those arrested had plans to bomb a building or had ties to any anti-government groups. The federal Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms is investigating. Along with the material for the fertilizer bomb, officers found 29 guns, including eight assault rifles, and material to make pipe bombs. Three ounces of marijuana and some methamphetamine were also found. [...] All were charged with drug possession and Luehring and the younger Bradley were also charged with being ex-convicts in possession of weapons. Carson didn't have details on their criminal past. [...] <unquote> I would be the first to admit that fertilizer and petrol are freely available and quite possibly innocent enough, but when the people involved are ex-convicts also in possession (apparently illegally; I don't know US law that well) of TWENTY-NINE firearms including EIGHT ASSAULT RIFLES, then I think police concern is quite reasonably warranted.

1 0

Re: Leahy bill nightmare scenario?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:12 AM 3/11/96 -0500, Gary Howland wrote: >Dan Weinstein writes: >Dan says "you" wrote: >> > Question: What, exactly, is the motivation of a person running an >> > anonymous remailer? His motivation is clear: To allow people to >> > send anonymously untraceable messages. Assuming he's of ordinary >> > levels of intelligence or beyond, he is aware that somebody may some >> > day use his system for illegal purposes. You're going to have to >> > explain why a court _CAN'T_ interpret this as being in violation of >> > the law. >> >> If I rent cars, someone might one day use a car rented from me in a >> robbery. Does that make my an accessary? NO. > >This is an unfair analogy. Now if you had said that you rented cars >without asking for proof of identification, thus making your car hire >centre very useful to robbers, that may more closely resemble the >anon-remailer situation. >Gary Exactly! I'm glad you noticed, and commented. As you've noticed, I keep getting faulty reasoning from people who SHOULD know better. Analogies are extremely useful, but if they are poorly crafted, they do little more than show the limitations of their author.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

From: Adam Shostack <adam(a)homeport.org> >From: TCMay: >| cryptanalysis. (Not to sound harsh to Allen, but why would anyone ask here >| on the list for recommendations to such a standard subject when Schneier, >| Garfinkel, Denning, etc. all have books listed?) > Niether Schneier nor Garfinkel really talk about analysis. >The only book I can think of is Biham's "Cryptanalysis of the DES," >and thats on a single technique. I wasn't asking about cryptanalysis; I was asking about codes (as opposed to cyphers). -Allen

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Gov't run anon servers
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Right. Couldn't you insert some kind of var into the kernel, rebuild and > upon each reboot have the remailer process (which would have to be root > owned) check for the value of this? I am of course assuming that the owner > of the remailer has admin control over the box, which is kind of unscalable. > If someone does gain entry to the machine, he'd need root to skim through > the kernel memory, and since he wouldn't have access to the remailer src > (you don't have it online, right?) he'd have a hard time looking for what he > needed... I was thinking of something much simpler, eg.: % remailer Enter passphrase: xxx Remailer started ... % This of course assumes that the remailer runs as a process - if it doesn't then there is no reason a 'remailer helper' cannot. The only disadvantage of this is that the remailer cannot be rebooted without a passphrase being entered, but then there are ways around this (entering the passphrase remotely over a secure link etc., or more sophisticated 'remote authorisation' systems). The advantage of this is that the password is never on the disk, only in memory (which will take serious (read "expensive") to extract). I am amazed at all of the talk of smart cards etc., when all that is really needed is a password entered at boot time. Gary -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)kampai.euronet.nl> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

2 1

Re: Bell, Detweiler, Ravings, and Whatnot
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:58 PM 3/10/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >There are many things I find terrible, disgusting, dangerous, wrong, etc. >But I have never been persuaded by people ranting at me and insulting me, >so I doubt that rants and insults from me will be effective. (I'm not >claiming to always be calm and non-insulting, just claiming that the style >of ranting is rarely effective, and I try to avoid it.) I think your criticism is unrealistic, at least by trying to suggest that I'm "ranting." I'm responding to a number of claims (the most recent one was from Bill Stewart) that the wart in this bill won't be abused, or at least not seriously. The people who make these claims frequently use wildly faulty reasoning; I challenge them and (I believe) support my position with accurate examples and commentary to prove my point. Admittedly, if you were on the receiving end of my persistent efforts, you might feel unhappy, but that doesn't make my comments "rants." >Screaming insults at people, resorting to ad hominem attacks on their >personality (such as Jim did with Padgett Peterson) I know nothing about Peterson's "personality" other than by his writing style and content. I find his commentary to be highly dishonest, because (as he fully admitted) he avoided responding to the points that I had made, which had accurately contradicted his original claims. I'm not complaining that didn't quote me; it's that he ignored the issues I'd raised in challenge to his claims. Further, he tried to disguise his failure by taking it off the list. >, ranting about how people are fools and worse, When these people stop acting like fools... Look, Tim, if I'm right about the ambiguities and threats in the Leahy bill, then it's a serious danger to us all. And that means that if an organization which is supposed to protect our interests soft-pedals the negatives, they are actually adding to the problem. When I saw a number of organizations lap it up like a cat slurps milk, I began to wonder if they were really paying attention to the issues at all. In addition, I've seen two separate comments (not on CP) by people who just about proudly claim that they "never" agree with me, but are actually quite pleased and are in agreement with my comments on this bill. Maybe this should tell you that I have a point, on this issue if nowhere else. In addition, "everybody" seems to agree that the positive parts of the bill are "positive," and most people can correctly identify the negative part. The issue is basically, "how negative" it is. A few days ago, all we saw was a few press releases by these organizations falling all over themselves to praise the bill, and having mild criticism for the bad part. I was the person who raised the issue of the serious danger of this bill to remailers and ISP's, which I still believe to be an accurate and very serious criticism. Contrary to the pessimistic opinions of some others, I believe that one of two situations are true: 1. The bad part is "easy" to delete, and we should and can do so. or 2. Somebody REALLY wants that bad part in there, in which case we should carefully investigate who it is, and why he wants it there. >Read the archives covering the several months when Detweiler (aka V. Z. >Nuri, aka S. Boxx, aka Pablo Escobar, aka about 20 other pseudonyms) was >foaming at the mouth about how people were mutating his brain, how the >crypto anarchists were ignoring him, how the snakes of Medusa were hiding >in his keyboard, and so on. Then note the similarities to Jim Bell. Sounds like a deliberately faulty association, Tim. I'm not responsible for Detweiler, and I think it's an unfair tactic to try to suggest that my comments are "similar." The moment I start talking about "mutating my brain" or things like that, I will have earned that kind of criticism. If you can show that my analysis is faulty with respect to the Leahy bill, you will have gone a long way to supporting your claims. As of now, your disagreement is simply with my debating style, which is admittedly on the "hardball" side. As for reading the archives, I'm never tried to do that, and I don't even know how (where) to get them. If I felt I could learn something from it, I would, but you've already listed commentary by Detweiler which sounds sufficiently wacky that it has to be far beyond anything I've said. How relevant are HIS comments compared to anyone else you've ever disagreed with? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Cryptographers against cryptography
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is the second in a regular series of postings to expose cryptographers and cypherpunks who are either lying to us or making a very serious mistake in there judgement. Why do I say this?? What do these people have in common? Easy. Even though they act like they are on the side of crypto for the masses, every one of them support the Leahy anticryptography bill. This law will make it illegal to run an encrypting remailer and will require key escrow. If it isn't clear why this is the case READ THE BILL!!!! Several wise people on the CypherPunkS mailing list, cypherpunks(a)toad.com have exposed the bill for what it is. Even though these people have been presented with evidence that the bill does these things they have not recanted. They stab us in the back and then they lie about it. Some of these people have been bought out by forces unknown. Others are just blind to the facts and need education. Bizdos is in a class by himself. It's time we "help" them think about this. Email each of these people with youre opinion that they should support cryptography or maybe stop lying to us that they do. What you say and do is up to you. I do not support breaking the law (yet). B. Schneier: bs208(a)newton.cam.ac.uk, schneier(a)counterpane.com M. Blaze: mab(a)crypto.com, mab(a)research.att.com J. Bizdos: jim(a)rsa.com S. Safaddar: shabbir(a)vtw.org D. Weinstein: djw(a)vplus.com P.. Peterson: padgett(a)hobbes.orl.mmc.com B. Stewart: stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com BOYCOTT APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY, AT&T, VTW, and RSA!!!!

2 1

spy sats
by Dan Harmon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tonight on the Discovery Channel at 10 eastern is a program about spy satellites. Dan

2 1