December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: DESZIP
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 22:01 7/30/96, Julian Assange wrote: >In the late 80's Matt Bishop while at NASA, wrote DESZIP, which for a >while was the seminal work. Matt has pointed me to a US summer 1987 >article which describes some of the DES optimisations, however as I am >an Australian national, Matt can not legally send me the actual >implimentation to me due to idiotic ITAR restrictions. Did you try the Usual Suspects? There are numerous crypto sites in Europe. If none of them has DESZIP, would someone outside the US please upload it... -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

Re: Clinton must like terrorists...
by koontz＠netapp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Clinton must like terrorists... because his most recent proposals will end >up making more of them. Maybe he is trying to foment revolution?

1 0

Reno and G8
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

AG Janet Reno is meeting today with G-8 ministers in Paris to discuss anti-terrorism policies. Reports on those sessions from highly placed Euro subscribers would be appreciated. If needed, faxes of articles may be sent to 212-799-4003, anonymity assured. French, German or Spanish welcomed -- we've got translation software to garble them in English.

1 0

RE: Implementing KEA in Software
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- From: source@iaccess.za[SMTP:source@iaccess.za] Sent: Monday, July 29, 1996 12:42 PM To: coderpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Implementing KEA in Software The restricted hardware implementation of KEA classification does not affect us(people outside of the USA), and therefore is "unrestricted" to us in our minds, so please note, this request is only for those prepared to make it avalaible, not for those who want to let us know that it is restricted. You are asking if there;s someone around willing to commit espionage: releasing US Government Classified information? You are asking to illegally obtain US Government Classified documents? Ummmmm.... maybe you need to be a little more covert. Or perhaps you are just simply painfully unaware of the difference between US crypto export restrictions (ITAR), and laws pertaining to illegally obtaining and releasing Classified stuff. In ether case you don't look so good. Regards, The Power Team SMTP: source(a)iaccess.za HTTP: http://www.compusource.co.za FTP: ftp://ftp.compusource.co.za Tel: +27-21-75-9197 FAX: +27-21-72-8005 Postal: Building 6, Room 201, CompuSource (Pty) Ltd PO Box 510, Constantia, 7848, South Africa. (CompuSource reserves the right to change offers and methods of working without prior notice.) -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.3i mQCNAzHb6qsAAAEEANeS5gaRlnPTnxvGNB/TUQyOlEli+EYyWZIrpadIuSZgKBsP RZIDlPohrgGudg59EZNlvQpWkdJIqOyal5UV9Dooz+iqMvwcVix6v6K8iwibM4Pq US9YmTOKKzVR4ffkn1gzdp/IhXbCkFIIkEUB/3chYm1jYkQsZSUBO7R8HxhRAAUT tB9Db21wdVNvdXJjZSA8c291cmNlQGlhY2Nlc3MuemE+iQCVAwUQMdvqrCUBO7R8 HxhRAQGSBAQAwDekrPCEc4SFCuUMjuiloztaxR8/TLnQLTM7TlYIReLss10a3SYT 8YmMGIgnv5MsuIVP0gD8ZWPhxHtuM//fCT+4hSHJ0aJ0DOqkE8o5JGCauxLdwWez MI5nbwasVgX5Ah/nEuTLfBF0cK4ifSOZB7VrmxASiaDy5EWqA/qCrtA= =RuFP -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

RE: Implementing KEA in Software
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- From: source@iaccess.za[SMTP:source@iaccess.za] Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 1996 2:37 AM To: coderpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Re: Implementing KEA in Software To make this quite clear...I am not anti any geographical space that has a name such as USA or any other name, as it is an inanimate substance. You would ONLY be right about classification and restrictions *IF* the information came from the USA, from a "restricted" or "classified" person, otherwise you are wrong. Remember not all info comes from the USA. No, but the KEA algorithms, the Skipjack algorithm used in the fortezza, etc. Were developed inthe US, by the NSA, with US dollars from taxpayers (for better or worse). THIS info does happen to be form, by and of the NSA, sorry. You are being childish.

1 0

New decency act court case
by Robin Powell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From the Nando Times. Formatted to my screen... Sorry about that. U.S. JUDGES DECLARE INTERNET DECENCY LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright ©1996 Nando.net Copyright ©1996 Reuter Information Service NEW YORK (Jul 29, 1996 11:35 p.m. EDT) - Federal judges Monday blocked enforcement of a new law aimed at regulating indecent material on the Internet because it bans constitutionally protected speech between adults. In its ruling, judges from the Southern District of New York granted an injunction sought by the editor of The American Reporter, an on-line newspaper, who argued that the law was too broad. The decision followed a ruling in June by a Philadelphia panel that also found a key part of the law to be unconstitutional. That ruling went farther than the one issued Monday by finding the law too vague as well as too broad. The Computer Decency Act of 1996 was passed overwhelmingly by Congress as part of the broader Telecommunications Act of 1996 and was signed by President Clinton on February 8. Because lawmakers expected immediate constitutional challenges they included provisions allowing swift appeals first through special panels and then directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. A key portion of the law, known as 223(d), makes it a crime to make indecent material available on computer systems that are accessible to children. The law provides for prison terms of two years and an $250,000 fine if indecent material is transmitted to minors. The New York panel said government attempts to limit offensive material to children would also place unacceptable restrictions on adults. It said the section not only regulates how pornographic material is sold and advertized, but "how private individuals who choose to exchange certain constitutionally protected communications with one another can do so. "The question presented is whether our Constitution tolerates this level of governmental intrusion into how adults speak to one another ... We reach the inescapable conclusion that 223(d) will serve to chill protected speech." The panel, which comprised Jose Cabranes of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and District Judges Leonard Sand and Denise Cote, discussed software designed to enable parents to limit children's exposure to inappropriate material. "Indecent content on the Internet ordinarily does not assault a user without warning: a child cannot gain access to Internet content with the touch of a remote control and while accidental viewing of indecent content is possible, there is no evidence in this record to suggest that it is likely," the panel wrote. It said that while parents can take steps to restrict access by their children, content providers have no way of guaranteeing that indecent material will not reach a minor. The judges said that the only way a content provider would comply with the section would be to refrain from sending out the objectionable material. "Because adults would lack means of engaging in constitutionally protected indecent communications over the Internet without fear of criminal liability, the statute would unquestionably be unconstitutional," the panel said.

1 0

Privacy a thing of the past
by George Kuzmowycz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

No, it's not my opinion. The subject line is the title of a keynote session at the DCI Internet Expo in Boston on October 15-17. The talk is being given by a fellow named Jim Sterne, who is listed as president of something called "Target Marketing". I got the brochure for the show in this morning's mail. You can get further info at http://www.DCIexpo.com. The description of the talk begins with the intriguing line "Computing power allows us to stop treating people like numbers and go back to treating them like human beings -- individuals with specific likes, dislikes and points of view." But it ends with "Along the way, privacy will become a quaint sentiment." So I guess we treat people like human beings, but human beings whom we know everything about. Although this is a paid conference, they give out free tickets to the "expo". It's not clear whether the free ticket gets you into the keynotes, but that has usually been the case in the past. If you're in or near Boston on 10/17, you may want to share your views with Mr. Sterne. -gk-

1 0

Re: Denning vs. Gilmore
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:14 PM 7/29/96 +0100, Roderick Simpson wrote: >Today, Monday, July 29, Dorothy Denning begins her debate vs. John Gilmore >over The Absolute Right to Privacy on Wired Online's Brain Tennis site. Do >citizens of the world have an "unalienable right" to privacy - or are there >reasons why governments ought to have access to our communications? This >debate will run daily through August 7. Follow along at >http://www.wired.com/braintennis/. To get into the debate yourself, go to: > >http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.21655 > >An excerpt of Dorothy's first post today: > > "I'm not ready to accept 'the cat is out of the bag.' The Wicked Witch of the East wasn't "ready to accept" a house being dropped on her. Denning's personal desires are equally irrelevant. > Let's look for a way of enjoying > the benefits of encryption without > unnecessarily hindering the ability of law > enforcement to perform its mission. I consider the primary benefit of good encryption to be the "hindering the ability of law enforcement to perform" the particularly abusive "mission" they've chosen for themselves. > Let's use encryption for privacy, but also give > law enforcement access to communications and > computer files when there is probable cause > and a judge has issued a court order. Many if not most of us out here believe that the ("probable cause") system is abusive, and has all the prospects of continuing to be abusive in the future. > In some cases, that access must be > surreptitious. But some of us consider such access to be unconstitutional, however "useful" you may believe it to be. In the past, the government has had the extreme luxury of not being forced to convince the public of its "right" to wiretap. Now, the advance of technology is forcing the question of such approval to be answered, and the Denning-types are getting really worried that the public isn't going to give that approval. Tough! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Netscape Security Lies
by source＠iaccess.za 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We have just tested Netscape's security page and it seems they are either lying or have a major bug. All you have to do to confirm this is to go to their page http://home.netscape.com/newsref/ref/netscape-security.html#test and click on the link under the heading Testing the Secure Server link "Here is a secure server you can visit. Do an iptrace and analyse of the interaction between the server and their browser version 3.05bgold and 3.05b, of which both reports that they are not even running a secure version of the server there. We decided to test further and found that the RSA secure server is only SSL 2 and SSL 3 which is what Netscape seems to be touting to the resting of the world saying they have it NOW. Later, if not much later seems far more realistic. I do not like being lied to, mislead or steam rolled by, how about you?

3 2

Re: Taxes in the digicash world
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:17 AM 7/30/96 -0500, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Hi > >Suppose that digital cash becomes easy enough to use and becomes the >mainstream medium in most [or at least many] economic transactions. > >The question is, how can the government TECHNICALLY collect taxes? >I do not mean to start `libertarianism vs. socialism' discussion, I >am more interested in the technical aspects of tax collection when >transfers of money are protected by strong crypto.. > >Let's say, maybe this tax would work: every time someone verifies that >a piece of digital cash is valid, s/he has to pay the government a little >percentage of the amount. Since digital banks are easier to control than >other participants of the market, this kind of tax legislation is easier to >enforce. If, for every $1 somebody paid in taxes, he instead (or, in addition to) paid 10 cents to a fund to eliminate the tax collectors, at the end of that year he wouldn't be paying any taxes anymore. That's why AP will work so well. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0