December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- someone wrote: >[homepage on IO] > >BTW, did you hear that IO got on the SurfWatch "bad list" because there >were more than 25 complaints about objectionable material in the io.com >domain. (Apparently, when SurfWatch hears more than 25 complaints >against a particular domain, the just deny access to the whole domain >rather than particular URLs.) A quick phone call to the Surf Watch people revealed that they rarely block whole domains, and that they are not currently blocking all of io.com. - -- mutant(a)compuville.com "They that can give up essential liberty to mutant(a)cypher.net obtain a little temporary safety deserve (send mail with Subject: neither liberty nor safety." send-pgp-key for PGP key) -Ben Franklin ~1784 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMT9NaH0ndmRPxibdAQFSJwQAtq/s1c+GZlHvgVOhNgM8Dseq0SQ+6L8U bx8FV0l85anNk+fjRnY5hD8RflHFeVzLis2yDmn8BLjYzVnHBEWBXXncpwg3okoQ FOMJJTZZbOec10ESy3pvRPwgie60IaR3qIcHUmUHRqbv5dOjgDg5GhYWeZ8rhCCN 0pisfaQBsVc= =qgSw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

NYT on Crypto Bills
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New York Times, March 4, 1996, p. D4. Compromise Bills Due on Data Encryption Industry Opponents and Civil Libertarians Are Lukewarm, at Best By John Markoff Legislation will be introduced in the House and the Senate tomorrow in an effort to break the deadlock between the computer industry and the Clinton Administration over the control and export of software and hardware used to scramble electronic data. So far, though, the proposed measures have received only cautious endorsement from industry executives, while civil-liberties and privacy groups say they are worried that the bills would enable the Government to decode scrambled transmissions. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Representative Bob Goodlatte, Republican of Virginia, plan to introduce similar bills that affirm the right of Americans to use any type of data-coding equipment without restriction and prohibit the mandatory use of special keys that would allow law-enforcement agencies to read scrambled data. Their bills would also make it a crime to use encryption technology in committing a crime and would permit the export of data-coding software and hardware if similar technology was available from a foreign supplier. Data-coding, or encryption, technology is based on mathematical formulas that rely on the immense computing challenge inherent in factoring large numbers. Until recently, such technology was largely used by military and intelligence organizations and by some corporations like banks. As electronic mail and commerce have become increasingly accessible, however, the technology has become more controversial. In April 1993, the Clinton Administration proposed a national data-encryption standard known as Clipper, based on a system that would have made it possible for law-enforcement agencies, if authorized by a court, to decode private voice and data communications. The Clipper initiative has been strongly opposed by industry executives and privacy advocates. They argue that reliable coding technology is essential for commerce and privacy protection on the Internet. They also say that strict export rules are increasingly hindering the ability of United States corporations to compete with foreign suppliers. The proposed legislation would ease some current restrictions on the exporting of data-coding systems, but civil libertarians still see areas of concern. "The bills relax export controls, which is clearly a step in the right direction," conceded Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a Washington research and policy organization. But the negatives, he said, were that the bills opened the door to Government access to private transactions "and criminalize the use of cryptography when it is used to perpetrate a crime." Industry officials said they expected the legislation to stir little enthusiasm from corporate users. "Corporate America is absolutely unwilling to give a third party control of their data," said Jim Bidzos, chief executive of RSA Data Security, a maker of encryption software based in Redwood City, Calif. [End]

3 4

WARES - random generator
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This may be of interest to people on the list... >Keywords: madison hawai obsceni prising ridblood ribiliss >Subject: WARES - random generator >Reply-To: email(a)fringeware.com (FringeWare Inc) >Date: Tue, 5 Mar 1996 11:06:20 -0600 >Apparently-To: fwlist-daily(a)fringeware.com >X-UIDL: 4751f2738fffe6a83cf40be20fcd79a5 > >Sent from: email(a)fringeware.com (FringeWare Inc) > >A certain vendor of ours has approached FringeWare with an offer for >exclusive distribution a new product, which may be of general interest >to people reading this list. > >The product line is called Perfect Crypt Products and the new item >being considered is a random number generator which plugs into the >serial port of your PC/Mac/Sparcbook/Cray/etc., and pours out a stream >of random numbers. The process is based on thermal radiation, the >randomness looks quite good, and the product would retail for about us$50. > >If you have an interest in such a product, please let us know here >at: email(a)fringeware.com and we'll add it to our catalog. > >One-time pad enthusiasts and PGP officionados might consider this >offer especially. > > >----------------------------------------------------- >pxn * FringeWare Inc. * http://www.fringeware.com > > > > > --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon "I, Caligula Clinton... In the name of the Senate and the people of Rome!" - Bill Clinton signing the CDA with the First Amendment bent over.

2 1

No Subject
by owner-cypherpunks＠toad.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> In a statement from Washington, the America's Carriers Telecommunication >Association says it "submits that it is incumbent upon the FCC to exercise >jurisdiction over the use of the Internet for unregulated interstate and >international telecommunications services." > "For example," adds the ACTA statement, "online service providers generally >charge users around $10 for five hours of access and then around $3 for each >additional hour. Five hours equals 300 minutes, divided by $10 is 3.3 >cents per >minute. The average residential long distance telephone call costs about 22 >cents per minute or seven times as much." It seems that once again, big business is trying to get in the way of progress and competition because they are afriad they are going to lose some money. It seems to me that the ACTA is upset because someone found a way to "do it cheaper" and the telco's stand to lose a lot of long distance dollars. So rather then using this technology and perhaps lowering LD rates, instead they seek to block out the technology from the public. I wonder what would happen if someone discovered an drastically cheaper alternative to gasoline, but it never made it main stream because the oil companies would go out of business. Seems like the same type of situation with the telco's. > Says ACTA, "Technology may once again be surpassing government's ability to >control its proper use. However, the misuse of the Internet as a way to >'by-pass' the traditional means of obtaining long distance service could >result in a significant reduction of the Internet's ability to transport >its ever >enlarging amount of data traffic." No, the technology is surpassing the telco's ability to provide low-cost communications. > Specifically, ACTA petitions the FCC to define the type of permissible >communications that may be effected over the Internet. Permissible communications? This sounds like something out of the CDA ... I say, just try and regulate it. I want to see the FCC try and monitor several million computer transmissions every day and see how well regulation works. Thomas J. Sawyer sawyer(a)nextek.com

1 0

Re: A brief comparison of email encryption protocols
by cme＠cybercash.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 15:54 2/29/96, Derek Atkins wrote: >So, there needs to be a compromise, some shorthand method to describe >the hint. One solution is to provide a "keyserver" type and then some >string that says which "keyserver" to use. For example, if there is a >DNS-style keyserver deplyed, I could put '1,"mit.edu"' in all my >signatures, if we assume that '1' is the DNS-style keyserver code. > >I'm sure there are other possible solutions as well, and any real >suggestions are welcome. is a URL just too big? My sigs are already several lines long. E.g., Key: ftp://ftp.clark.net/pub/cme/cme.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMTYY/1QXJENzYr45AQFr5QQAkff2u+VvCvpPYTyYCVsj1NFMD/dsN+Ps Dyc7cX4iMDynls+dibG8cTAw6FrqKtvZ6qSDdu15oI49rHiEzTZOWj/VUKjlalmu rp0QZ7iSiYinsHFK4H/ZfWarx/3RfngGFXjNOLQUjpe0Otqz1nnHqaVkCXPbz/VG gmQbMKn5syA= =hKEC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)cybercash.com http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | |CyberCash, Inc., Suite 430 http://www.cybercash.com/ | |2100 Reston Parkway PGP 2.6.2: 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | |Reston, VA 22091 Tel: (703) 620-4200 | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

9 13

Re: new netscape servers
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:14 PM 3/7/96 -0500, Michael Froomkin wrote: >What law applies to a certificate used in a multi-jurisdictional >transaction is less obvious to me than I would like. I think I have >talked a student in my seminar into writing a paper to educate me. Are your concerns international, interstate, or (it seems unlikely) intrastate? Regards - 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: Another Motivation for the CDA
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Note: This post is 100% free of crypto and conspiracy theories. My response to Tim: > >I think you're reading too much into motives, Tim. I don't think that > >most in congress are capable of thinking that elaborately, and besides, > >if someone is convicted of violating the CDA for saying "fuck" online, > >that is the type of felony that one can get a judge's waiver for... Jim Bell's response to mine: > I am NOT relieved at hearing this. If one must have a "judge's waiver," > then that means he probably can "request" whatever other conditions he > chooses to put on his waiver. The government still has a motivation to make Yes and no. Depends on the judge. Some are hard-assed about granting waivers, others aren't. Part of the problerm is that judges have too much discretion. Another is in the constitution, w/regards to right to vote (it can be denied to felons... I know a couple of people convicted of DWIs that can no longer vote... they just don't care enough to go to a judge and get a waiver.) Not that you would want to put faith in getting a waiver. I'm just critical of Tim's assertion/speculation that gun-control is related to voting for the CDA. Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

Re: ANTI-CRYPTO CYPHERPUNKS
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-03-08 01:37:10 EST, you write: >Subj: ANTI-CRYPTO CYPHERPUNKS >Date: 96-03-08 01:37:10 EST >From: anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >This is the first in a regular series of postings of cypherpunks >who have joined big brothers fight to deprive you from Unescrowed >Crypto. Some of these pigs have come out in favor of the new anticrypto >bill which makes it a crime to use crypto if big bro can't read it >and also sets up key escrow but others have just said that they >don't care if the government can read YOUR mail as long as they get >what they want. I see the mentally impaired, chicken crap eating buttwipe that wrote this drivel wasn't even brave enough to post his real email address. Jonathan Wienke

2 1

Re: TCP/IP Stego (was CU-SeeMe)
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>A tcp header contains quite a bit of useful information.. but most of it >wouldnt be easily manipulated (by me) to get a bit. You cant very well >alternate the port number you are using, or change the packet sequence >numbers. However, the tcp protocol forces each tcp header to contain a >'checksum' field.. which is (more or less) the sum of all the octets in >the packet. This is used as error correction for the protocol. It >shouldn't be too difficult to force TCP to fiddle with the data in the >packet a bit to force the checksum to be a particular sort of thing (i.e. >even or odd number) .. 0 for even and 1 for odd would get us our one >bit of data per packet. This is a bad idea, because in addition to the extra processor overhead, it is an incredible waste of bandwidth. For a 512 byte packet, you are only getting .02% efficiency, because you wouldn't be able to use the actual data in the packet; otherwise someone would probably notice the increased error rate if you dink around with the checksum. This does not provide adequate plausible deniability. Stegoing a 16 bit WAV file gives you 50% efficiency, (you can replace the 8 least significant bits with stego data and still keep 10 bits worth of sound quality) and someone else would be unable to prove there was any encrypted info in it if you did it right. Jonathan Wienke

1 0

Re: Assassination Politics 9!
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:13 PM 3/3/96 -0500, John Young wrote: >On Mar 03, 1996 10:57:14, 'nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous)' wrote: > > >>Just because you two aren't interested, doesn't mean others aren't. >>Work is actually in progress in implementing such a system. > > >The Economist of March 2 has a cover story on state, church and private >terrorism, the effectiveness and failures of each, the arguments and >apologies, the savages and the victims, the lucrative concocting of >imaginary enemies -- military, religious, political, personal. > >It's conclusions are ... well, have a read and dread how the Demon Trio of >state, church and private super-righteous sub-humans will murder you and >your loved ones next to fulfill their blind ambitions. Well, I'm not particularly interested in how the Establishment is going to demonize those who would seek its eventual downfall. While I probably wouldn't have any argument against complaints about "state and church terrorism," I really doubt whether the so-called "private terrorism" you mention above qualifies. Most traditional "terrorism" (as least "traditional," by the standards of the last 20 years) is thought to involve relatively unfocussed attacks against people and locations, but in situations where attacks against selected government officials would be far more selective and effective. Naturally, those same officials wouldn't approve of replacing a scattershot technique with one that targets them more directly. Since I propose exactly that kind of replacement, I am presumably not the most ingratiating figure to these people.

1 0