December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

GIV_eus
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

11-16-96. WaPo: "Air Force Halts Merger of SAIC and Aerospace. Feared Change Could Affect Spy Program." Aerospace has analyzed all aspects of the nation's super-secret satellite and rocket programs, as well as space companies' most sensitive proprietary data. The Air Force's clubby classified space office feared changing Aerospace's status could disrupt operations. Many defense contractors have complained about such feared contracts for insiders, begging: god, give us. ----- http://jya.com/giveus.txt (4 kb) GIV_eus

1 0

Re: AGA'S LIMITED VOCABULARY
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:37 ðì 17/11/1996 -0500, aga wrote: >> about the use of technology to protect privacy. Perhaps you >> were confusing it with that other list you are on: >> alt.sex.yourmother. > >No, it is your mother I have been fucking. Pity! Aga should respong to this lady's needs FIRST! :-) BTW, (paraphrasing Speedy Gonzales)... I think she really fucks for money, but since you are an aga she'll fuck you for nothing! :-) >> > What year did you graduate from Law School? >> >> Irrelevant, but it was 1975. More importantly, though, when did >> YOU graduate from law school? > >1975. And my school was better than your school. > >I was the fucking class President in Law School. We >fucked on Library tables at Pitt. Where the fuck did >you go to school? I can see the beginnings of an... S/M cyber-romance in these lines. ROTFL!!! Aga should not forget to carry a... cane in his briefcase. The more arrogant they sound at first, the more submissive their fantasies are! (ALL masochists in fact). :-) Love and Jelly Babies George P.S. My first guess is that Sandy is a Piscean, and Aga is a Taurus. It would work out better with him being a Scorpio or a Leo, however. (My second guesses on Aga). My second guess on Sandy is that she's a Virgo, however. In this case avoid her at all costs! ROTFL!!!!

1 0

Re: A word on "emergencies" [WAS Re: Final Solution to the Crypto ]
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Professor Michael Froomkin penned, amid the "freedom knight" noise: <snip> >my point is a simple one. The fact that the President has >declared an emergency here is primarily a technical legal event. It is >not a sign that martial law is about to be declared, that they are coming >to take you or your [fill in blank] away, or that anything fundamental has >changed. OK, let's fill in the blank. Gun. I have heard noises that sound like you wouldn't mind this, even though I am totally peaceful and would never want to shoot anyone absent extreme provocation (such as armed invasion of my home). The way I see it, martial law could be declared at any time, or it could slowly be declared now, which I think is happening. Checkpoints and house-searches for drugs and drunks are to get us used to checkpoints and house-searches for guns and unauthorised crypto. This is only my opinion, and I fear revealing my identity publicly because people with guns are starting to get used to hiding our emotions if we are peaceful and harmless, like me. I rarely even go to the range and practice anymore (2-4 times a year). I can imagine my kids feeling the same way about sending messages with strong crypto protection. >Multi-year emergencies in which the executive uses one statute >to compensate for the Congressional decision/failure to pass another >statute is not, I submit, a particularly telling sign of a mature and >healthy democracy. But this goes to large and gradual processes, not to >anything that suddenly happened. Why am I thinking about boiling frogs now?

1 0

Re: Crypto Bounties: Another Thought that crossed my mind.
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric Hughes gave a two-part presentation at DEFCON IV, which he has subsequently polished up, that addresses: 1. ways to implement a Universal Priacy System that enables simple and anonymous data hiding using the existing Net facilites, and 2. a system of intellectual property distribution and funding which is based more closely on models used in Hollywood (e.g., completion bonds). Eric, what's the status of your proposal? -- Steve >Here we go again: > > There are is a lot of software that we would all like to see >developed and deployed right? > > There are a lot of people out there who write code, sometimes >even freely redistributable code, but they have to eat, and get their >net access right? > > Well, I was thinking, what if a "Crypto Software Bounty Server" >were set up, so that someone could propose a tool that they would like >to see, along with an initial bounty. Others could contribute toward that >bounty (anonymously if they wish) until either the tool was delivered. > > The original issuer sets standards for the software (i.e. "easy to >use interface to mixmaster remailers for Macintosh", then must define >easy to use; Software considered delivered when in [alpha beta late-beta >&etc.]). The first to present software meeting these qualifications gets >the bounty, with the caviate that the software must be either gnu-copylefted, >or some similar "free use" copyright, after all, "The Net" paid for it... > > Some of the problems (and potential solutions) I can think of in this: > > 1) Refusing to honor the contract--Maybe when a project is proposed, > some other people (for a small percentage of the total) sign on > as judges. When they feel that it reached the stated goal, then > it is done. -Or- Money put up is non-refundable, and the bounty > stays in the "bank" until claimed. > > 2) If the money stays in the bank until claimed, people might not > put up that much (or enough) to make a specific project worthwile-- > > This could be solved by allowing the "bounty" to lapse in one > of 3 ways: > > A) <x> length of time after the initial proposal (bad because > i) someone could already be working on it; ii) bad because > other people might add to the bounty, so a potential programmer > might not start until the "pot" has grown to a certain level. > > B) <x> length of time after the last addition to the bounty, > bad for both i & ii above. > > These can both be gotten around (and other problems) by allowing > programmers to "register" with the service that they are working > on a project (either anonymous registery, so that people will > still contribute to the project, or list those registered so > that people know [if who] someone is working on it) > > 3) Funding: The server (in both the machine and the organizational sense) > could be funded by: > > A) Interest on the money accumulated. > > B) A percentage of the bounty (say 10%) > > C) Both A & B. > >Has anything like this been proposed before? I know that the FSF (IIRC) accepts >contributions, but I am thinking of something more targeted, more "market >driven" if you will. > >This could be expanded to non-crypto software as well, just think, if half >the X Window users ponied up $5 a peice for a "good, easy to use non-motif >word processor", how long do you think it would take for someone to start >coding a MS Word killer? > >Comments? > > >Petro, Christopher C. >petro(a)suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> >snow(a)smoke.suba.com

1 0

Strong Encryption for International Versions of Netscape
by Scott Weisman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 17, 1996 ANNOUNCING STRONG ENCRYPTION FOR INTERNATIONAL VERSIONS OF NETSCAPE JERUSALEM, Israel -- SecureScape Technologies announces the alpha release of its first product, SecureScape. This revolutionary program offers international users of Netscape Navigator the same strong encryption as that enjoyed by users in North America. All software encryption products developed in the United States are subject to export restrictions. Such exported software is subject to an arbitrary 40-bit key length, compared to the 128-bit (or greater) key length commonly found in domestic software. This weakened software is in certain ways inferior to no encryption at all, since it gives users a false sense of security. The Executive Order by President Clinton on November 15, which modifies U.S. Government policy on export restrictions, still requires requests for export permits to be considered on a case by case basis. Furthermore, it is very likely that strong encryption products will be granted export permits conditional on key-escrow or other compromise arrangements, because the Executive Order states, "the export of encryption software . . . must be controlled . . . such software shall not be considered or treated as 'technology'." Implying that encryption software is still considered a form of munitions. The irony, of course, is that strong encryption has been widely and easily available outside of the U.S. for years. SecureScape was developed using the freely available SSLeay library, developed by Eric Young of Australia. SecureScape Technologies was founded by Scott Weisman, a software developer residing in Jerusalem, to develop and market Internet security products. The company is seeking investors interested in a strategic partnership. The SecureScape home page is located at <http://www.SecureScape.com/secscape/>. SecureScape currently works with Netscape versions 1.1 or later on the Windows 95 and Windows NT platforms. CONTACT: Scott Weisman P.O.B. 31194 Jerusalem 91311 ISRAEL sweisman(a)SecureScape.com © 1996 Scott Weisman - All Rights Reserved. Netscape and Netscape Navigator are trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation. Microsoft, Windows, and Windows NT are trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. SecureScape uses software developed by Eric Young (eay(a)mincom.oz.au)

1 0

Re: MSIE 128 Bit
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM (dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com) wrote: : Steve Shelby <sshelby(a)feist.com> writes: : > : > Microsoft has a 128 bit version of their Explorer available. : > : > You have to jump through a few hoops, but they have it. : How about maiking available on a European mirror site with no questions asked? ftp.replay.com/pub/replay/pub/incoming/0-microsoft/ has one 128 bit version. -- Alex de Joode http://www.replay.com/people/adejoode I have a linux emulator for Win95: it's called "loadlin" ... *g*

1 0

RE: The Utility of Privacy
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Hal Finney You suggest that the main motivation which someone might have for protecting privacy is that they are engaged in some illicit activities: page 45: "Why should I really care if someone sees this? I have nothing to hide." ..................................................... This statement from David Brin impressed me with the consistency of a certain way of thinking that some people have: "I think that having a minimum standard of living is good, therefore everyone should be coerced to contribute to the general welfare." On the other hand, "I myself have nothing to hide, therefore no one should be concerned (read: permitted) to do so." The issue for them in regard of what everyone should/should not do, is whether anything is logical as far as they themselves can see - and the logic revolves around what they themselves think is right; the extent of their own vision is considered sufficient to determine the parameters of everyone else's life & actions, and therefore sufficient cause to have their measures imposed over all. But this letter of Hal's brought up an important point: that even if a person has nothing to hide, it is not the openness or closedness of information which is of concern, but the *responses of others* to that information. When an individual wants to live a free & open life, they expose themselves to dangers. In order to be free to roam, they must have a way to protect themselve from all manner of destructive influences - the weather, predatory animals, vicious strangers, etc. There must be a way to protect what is one's own in order to preserve it. If it was easier for everyone to defend themselves against attacks on their person or reputation, maybe there would not be as much concern about privacy. Perhaps if a person could "get away" from others, could continue to have a normal life without too much disruption, once some exciting bit of info was out in public, if they could maintain command over the effects upon their life despite living in a fishbowl, then no one would worry quite as much (although the principle of personal control over one's property remains the same). But in the meantime, we have but few ways to protect ourselves under the centralized arrangement for protection (police, defense agencies). Anyone in a government position is aware of how their public expressions can result in public outcries against them; the secret agencies protect their information files because of what "the enemy" would *do* if they found out about these - even if the agency itself does not consider its activities immoral. If Information is like munition, privacy is like defense - it is a form of self defense. .. Blanc

1 0

Please take me off the list
by Tom Van de Wiele 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sir Please take me off the list. Thanks Tom Van de Wiele -- tomvdw(a)glo.be

2 1

You ought to REALLY look at this...
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ladies and Gentlemen, I hereby quote a rather remarkable letter, which I pass on to whom it may concern. I consider it an _honour_ to have received such a letter, even though the material expressed in the letter is a serious assault on the entire Western Value System, and possibly Civilisation itself, no joke. At first I did not believe such a *terrorist* letter could have EVER been written. And I could never believe myself to be the recipient of it either. But now I strongly recommend you read it carefully and think about it... For your OWN benefit, I believe more than mine... With thanks for your attention George A. Stathis P.S. If you take a deep breath, see my (amusing?) comments in the end. :) >Hops: 0 >Posted-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 20:13:15 -0200 (GMT) >X-Sender: tcmay(a)mail.got.net >Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 10:18:36 -0800 >To: "George A. Stathis" <hyperlex(a)hol.gr> >From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> >Subject: Stathis on "Don't Hire" List >Content-Length: 1426 > >At 9:00 AM -0200 11/17/96, George A. Stathis wrote: > >>It is not ethical to send such strong negative _injunctions_ to masses >>of people and also to strangers (the 1900-strong members of the cyberphunks >>list for instance). Because, you may or may not have strong reasons for >>believing you are justified in such invalidation, but more than a 1000 >>people are now _told_ by (self-appointed) "experts" such as yourself what >>and whom to ignore or to believe. (Like sheep led to the slaughter)... > >"Not ethical"? > >But we will do it anyway. Moreover, some of us maintain lists of "Do Not >Hire" persons. Few high tech or Silicon Valley software companies will hire >such folks. > >Congratulations, Stathis, as you are now on such a list. > > > >"The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos,.."We warned IBM >that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." >[NYT, 1996-10-02] >We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." Comments? (1) Well, first of all, Tim May is doing a disservice to the companies who use his services. They will end up hiring only morons and controllable relics of human creativity; Which is why there a WORLD-SHORTAGE of SUPER- PROGRAMMERS at the moment, as reported e.g. by Byte-magazine. (2) If I were a _clever_ American employer, I'd use Tim's 'black list', in order to HIRE precisely those people whom he considers 'unemployable'... (3) Now I don't want to boast about who I am, but it's strangely ironical that I _am_ one such "Super-Programmer" (fluent in PROLOG. Assembly, 'C' and also... English -a computer-lingo as it happens). In the eighties I was also a painter (of pictures, not walls), and other things... As a 'New Age' kind of person, I used to admire America for rewarding and promoting human _talent_, as opposed to human mediocrity, subservience (the "Yes-Man" attitude), and Evil in the Soul. (as often happened in old-whore Europe; especially in Greece)... :-) Nowadays, however, when 'people' like Tim May, are able to dictate to your admirable High-Technology firms, *what* kind of people to hire and what not to hire, I can see... very gloomy prospects for American Research, _if_ this type of monstrocity (as his letter) is prevails for too long... :-) Originally, lists of "unemployable" people, which I had heard of, crossed my mind as 'probably justified'. As an EMPLOYER MYSELF, with a small but strong software-house, here in Athens, with at least one important Market Success, I do have some experience, you know, of what kind of people *are* and what kind of people are *not* 'employable'. I once knew a very good but very egotistic Assembly Language programmer. When he stopped working with me he stole large sections of my source-code. As a result, I find it hard to trust 'employees' ever since... (4) I would therefore request a list of 'unemployable' people in order to choose possible collaborators, in my work. They should be highly proficient in PROLOG code, as well as ASSEMBLY and 'C', and should also be sociable, witty and independent-minded. Clashing with personalities like Tim May's may be considered an added advantage. (5) Just for the record, I spoke on the phone with an important partner, told him what happened, and was told by him that Tim May's letter is the kind of scum-fascism no serious European Company would ever give credit to... However, Tim's letter appears not so much to address me personally, as much as the hordes of gullible, insecure, employment-hungry young Americans, who are often _terrorised_ into complete SILENCE, since the _slightest_ amount of free speech in their own natural (or Net-) surroundings, causes Fascist PUnk-Thugs like TIm May to threaten them with unemployability. Although Tim May's letter in itself constitutes terroristic harrasment, threat to libery (via threat of unemployability), and so on, I consider these labels to be irrelevant in this case, and legal arguments highly irrelevant. When Nazi Germany deported Einstein it took much less elaborate procedures than flawed 'unemployability lists'. Perhaps hiring Mafia men to finish us off would be a much more efficient tactic in this respect. :-) With Dismay, but also... Inspiration :-) Geore A. Stathis P.S. I also cross-posted this DELIBERATELY, this time to the cypherpunks list, in order to give more COURAGE to those poor list-members whose standard of living suffers the terror and threat of Unemployment, just in case they know who is responsible for their future sufferings.

1 0

Re: Giving Kill Files a Workout...
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dimitri Vulis writes about unwanted noise: > They feel compelled to silence it altogether. They claim altruistically > that they don't want the noise to bother anyone else, such as the clueless > newbies who keep subscribing to this mailing list and don't know how to > use mail filters. (Sandy Sanford's concern for them was soooo touching...) Misplaced altruism is one of the primary causes of social injustice, authoritarian regimes, and security measures. It is not possible to be "altruistic" until one realizes that one doesn't know what true "altruism" is. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Don't follow in the footsteps of the ancients, seek what they sought.

1 0