December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Tolerance (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca > Date: Fri, 02 Aug 96 11:19:52 EST > Subject: RE: Tolerance (fwd) > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote: > >Libertarian views should be basicaly if it doesn't harm anothers person or > >property without their prior consent then it should be legal and >permissible. > > It is important to consider cultural factors when deciding how groups will react > to differing standards of legal and permissible actions. For example, a brief > summary of the basic tenets held by some different European cultures are given > below: > > British: Everything is permitted, unless it is forbidden. > German: Everything is forbidden, unless it is permitted. > France: Everything is permitted, especially if it is forbidden. > Culture has nothing to do with inherent civil liberities, you have them simply for being alive. People create social contracts to limit those rights. You have the cart before the horse. Jim Choate

1 0

RE: Tolerance (fwd)
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote: >Libertarian views should be basicaly if it doesn't harm anothers person or >property without their prior consent then it should be legal and >permissible. It is important to consider cultural factors when deciding how groups will react to differing standards of legal and permissible actions. For example, a brief summary of the basic tenets held by some different European cultures are given below: British: Everything is permitted, unless it is forbidden. German: Everything is forbidden, unless it is permitted. France: Everything is permitted, especially if it is forbidden. Au revoir, James

1 0

privacy is a SMOKESCREEN.
by artichoke bill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

from eff: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: ALERT: Congress Rushing to Enact Anti-Privacy Bill - Call Congress NOW! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **** Last minute update **** Just before ye editor was about to send this issue out, reports are filtering in that negotiations on the bill that is the subject of the alert below, have collapsed. CNN reports: "Key members of the Senate blamed House conservatives for the failure, saying they had insisted on linking proposed new wiretapping authority for the FBI to an expansion of privacy laws." CNN quotes Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) as saying that House Republican leaders "have come up with this smokescreen called privacy". You may wish to let Rep. Schumer know how you feel about your right to privacy being labelled "a smokescreen": 9th Dist. NY Schumer, Charles E. (D) 1-202-225-6616 (voice), 1-202-225-4183 (fax) The full text of the CNN article is available at: http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/01/wh.terror.bill/index.html The article also reports that "lawmakers said there is hope for agreement after the month long" Congressional recess beginning at the end of this week. THIS MEANS THAT THE ALERT BELOW IS STILL URGENT, and still important. We just have a short breathing space now.

1 0

Re: Blurring the Chains of Causation
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in my view the ultimate foolishness of this sort was bringing Cessna Aircraft to it's knees by sueing them on behalf of people who crashed because of their inability to handle the airplane in the conditions into which they put themselves. -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Thu Aug 1 18:32:44 1996 > Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 10:39:12 -0700 > X-Sender: tcmay(a)mail.got.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) > Subject: Blurring the Chains of Causation > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 4559 > > > An unusual thread name, "Blurring the Chains of Causation." > > What I mean is this: > > - the U.S. legal system has been blurring, or confusing, the chain of > cause-and-effect in crimes > > - Example: allowing suits by insurance companies and states against tobacco > companies. A smoker gets cancer by his actions, and it used to be that this > was his action, his responsibility. Now, we hold tobacco companies liable, > and perhaps will someday hold executives of these companies criminally > liable. (This for a product which is not illegal, mind you.) > > (There are a bunch of related examples. "Civil liability" is a major way > this blurring is happening. Gun manufacturers being sued for crimes > committed with their guns, ladder makers sued by the families of criminals > who leaned ladders up against electrified fences, and so on. How long > before a bookstore is sued for "allowing" a book to be bought by someone > who later is "inspired" to commit a crime--actually, John Grisham ("The > Firm") is involved in a lawsuit against Oliver Stone for his film, "Natural > Born Killers," which Grisham claims "inspired" a murder. This has got to > stop, in my opinion.) > > - "They made me do it" defenses. Hostess Twinkies are implicated in the > brutal murder of San Francisco's mayor and a city councilman. Childhood > abuse is exculpatory in other cases. Psychobabblers blather about what > caused people to behave as they did. A mass murderer says pornography made > him kill 25 women. A lawyer claims his client's son committed suicide after > listening to heavy metal music. And so it goes. > > This blurring has links to cryptography, bomb-making instructions on the > Net, availability of porn on the Net, and many other things. > > To cut to the chase: > > - a librarian who "allows" a person to check out "The Anarchist Cookbook" > is *not* causing a crime, though much of the rhetoric one hears is > otherwise. > > - the _author_ of that book (Powell, allegedly) is *also* not causing a crime. > > - the _publishers_ of that book (Lyle Stuart, as I recall--my copy is not > handy) also have not committed any crime > > To make things clear, some of the language being proposed in the > rush-to-law about anti-terrorism, wiretapping, anti-encryption, etc. As > Sen. Feinstein puts it, "We hope we can wrap up the repeal of the Bill of > Rights and have it on President Clinton's desk before the close of the > Olympics on Sunday." :-( > > - if I _advocate_ strong crytography, avoidance of taxes, undermining of > government power, crypto anarchy, etc., I have not committed any crime > (Caveat: advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government apparently > is a crime, as are certain forms of conspiracy, a la RICO, tax evasion, > etc.) > > - if I _use_ strong cryptography, I have not committed any crime, ipso > facto, nor am I necessarily conspiring to commit any crime > > And so on. > > Many of the proposed restrictions seek to further blur this chain of > causation, by making someone who provides access to materials which _may_ > later be used in a crime, or which may "inspire" someone to crime, a kind > of criminal. > > The trend picked up steam with the "deep pockets" precedents in the 70s > (*), was fed by the blame-passing psychobabble of the same decade, and has > now reached its present state by a willingness of the courts to hear such > cases. > > People who actually commit real crimes are the criminals, not those who > sold them Hostess Twinkies without first checking their blood sugar level. > Not those who let a library patron look at a "dangerous" book. And not > those who provided strong cryptographic tools which _might_ be used by > terrorists, pedophiles, and money launderers. > > --Tim May > > (* "deep pockets" -- If there are N parties in a lawsuit, and one of them > shares only 5% of the (putative) blame but has 95% of the overall assets, > go after the party with the "deepest pockets." This forced Cessna and > Piper, the leading light aircraft firms at one time, to stop selling light > aircraft. The example with Oliver Stone being sued is a clear case of > this.) > > Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! > We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, > Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. > "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." > > > > >

1 0

Re: Is 1024-bit PGP key enough?
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

actually, the IDEA key is 128 bits. -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Fri Aug 2 03:06:24 1996 > X-Sender: gcg(a)mail.pb.net > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 22:16:06 -0400 > To: jim(a)ACM.ORG > From: "Geoffrey C. Grabow" <gcg(a)pb.net> > Subject: Re: Is 1024-bit PGP key enough? > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 1454 > > At 15:38 08/01/96 PDT, Jim Gillogly wrote: > > > >Somebody says: > >>> Is security provided by 1024-bit PGP key sufficient against most powerful > >>> computers that are available today? Say if smoe organization spent 10 > >>> billions of dollars on a cracking machine, would it be possible to crack > >>> the keys in reasonable time? > > > >Derek Atkins <warlord(a)MIT.EDU> responds with some useful and authoritative > >information -- thanks. > > > Also, remember that although the PGP key is 1024 bits, it generates a much > smaller IDEA key with 56 bits (I think... anyone?). The 56 bit key is > vunerable to that $1 mil mystery machine that the NSA may or may not have. > > G.C.G. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | Geoffrey C. Grabow | Great people talk about ideas. | > | Oyster Bay, New York | Average people talk about things. | > | gcg(a)pb.net | Small people talk about people. | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------| > | PGP 2.6.2 public key available at http://www.pb.net/~wizard | > | and on a plethora of key servers around the world. | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------| > | That which does not kill us, makes us stranger. - Trevor Goodchild | > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >

1 0

Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:36:56 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" > > "Given the loss of privacy tolerated by 99.9999% of American citizens in > the past twenty years, no one has a right to complain about the > government taking new powers for itself." > > You cannot have it both ways. If you are free to define what is or is not > a public nuisance when you do it; likewise am I. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. ARTICLE IX. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [The first ten amendments went into effect on 15 December 1791.]

2 1

More on the latest Surveillance Bill...
by jseiger＠cdt.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The outline below is from a document produced by the House Republican Conference. It is ONLY A SUMMARY of the proposed bill and is NOT actual legislation. No one I have spoken with has seen any specific legislative language yet. The outline is confusing on several points, particularly the "FBI DIGITAL TELEPHONY" Section, which says: "The bill authorizes the FBI to use enhanced telephone technology to investigate suspected terrorist activity. Funding for equipment purchase was provided in the 1996 omnibus appropriations measure enacted earlier this year." The first sentence above is not at all clear, and probably won't be until we can get our hands on the actual text of the bill. It could be additional wiretap authority (ie, roving wiretaps), or it could be nothing. As far as the funding goes, the "1996 omnibus appropriations measure" DID NOT contain funding for implementation of the law - but it did appropriate $37 million to cover new equipment for the FBI. The rest looks like it is a scaled back version of a measure the Administration and members of Congress were pushing earlier this week, but the scope of the new bill depends a lot on what the actual text says. I will post additional information as soon as I get it. Jonah -- Bipartisan Antiterrorism Initiative HR__ Committee on the Judiciary No Report Filed To Be Introduced Floor Situation: The House is scheduled to consider HR__ on Friday August 2, 1996. On Thursday August 1, the Rules Committee granted a rule to allow the bill to be considered under suspension of the rules. It is debatable for 40 minutes, may not be amended, and requires a two-thirds vote for passage. Summary: HR__ includes several bipartisan initiatives intended to bolster federal efforts to combat domestic terrorism in addition to those already enacted earlier this year as part of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (P.L. 104-132). The bill contains the following counter-terrorism provisions: Aviation SECURITY MEASURES: The bill enables domestic airports to aggressively search for and prevent explosives from causing destruction and harm to individuals or property through enhanced explosive detection procedures, baggage and passenger screening, and FBI authority to improve airport security training and standards to ensure that provisions of the 1990 Aviation Security Act (P.L 101-604) are implemented expeditiously. Specifically, the bill (1) requires the FAA to implement increased explosives section methods immediately, (2) strengthen the level of training and expertise possessed by security personnel who are assigned to domestic airports, (3) allows airports to use available funding to reinforce such training for security personnel, and (4) extends criminal background requirements to include a greater number of airport employees. IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS: The bill urges implementation of provisions enacted in the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (P.L. 104-132), such as designating and freezing the assets of foreign terrorist organizations and implementing expedited removal procedures for aliens convicted of a crime. BIPARTISAN "BLUE RIBBON" COMMISSION: The bill establishes a special commission to review all aspects of U.S. anti-terrorism policy and make legislative recommendations about methods to most effectively establish a long-term defense against terrorist threats, including enhancing the nation's human intelligence capabilities. PRIVACY ACT AMENDMENTS: The bill includes provisions which grant a cause of action against the U.S. if in the course of a wiretap investigation damaging information is willfully disclosed to the detriment of an innocent party by the federal government. The cause of action includes monetary damages to the plaintiff if a favorable decision is rendered in federal court. EXPLOSIVES STUDY: The bill authorizes a study on black and smokeless powder by an independent agency selected by the National Institute of Justice. FEDERAL RACKETEERING STATUTE CRIMES: The bill permits federal prosecutors to deem those acts determined to be terrorist in nature as substantial enough to invoke criminal prosecution under existing criminal racketeering (RICO) statutes. FBI DIGITAL TELEPHONY: The bill authorizes the FBI to use enhanced telephone technology to investigate suspected terrorist activity. Funding for equipment purchase was provided in the 1996 omnibus appropriations measure enacted earlier this year. -- ** THE FIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH ONLINE CONTINUES TO THE SUPREME COURT ** It's not too late to be a part of history -- Join the Lawsuit <http://www.cdt.org/ciec> -- <ciec-info(a)cdt.org> -- Jonah Seiger, Policy Analyst Center for Democracy and Technology <jseiger(a)cdt.org> 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 PGP Key via finger (v) +1.202.637.9800 http://www.cdt.org/ (f) +1.202.637.0968 http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger/

1 0

Tao Renji Public Key system
by Jean-Paul Kroepfli 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Bruce, I was testing the Raike's Public Key software, when I remembered a section of your excellent book. In Applied Cryptography, second edition, section 19.10 (page 482) you present the Renji's work about a public key algorithme based on finite automata. Where could we found the FAPKC1 and FAPKC2 algorithms, their implementations, and executable versions (you mention an Intel486 test). Many thanks, With kindest regards Jean-Paul ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Jean-Paul et Micheline Kroepfli (our son: Nicolas and daughter: Celine) eMail: JeanPaul.Kroepfli(a)utopia.fnet.fr Also Compuserve and MSNetwork Phone: +33 81 55 52 59 (F) PostMail: F-25640 Breconchaux (France) or: +41 21 843 27 36 (CH) or: CP 138, CH-1337 Vallorbe Fax: +33 81 55 52 62 (Switzerland) Zephyr(r) : InterNet Communication and Commerce, Security and Cryptography consulting PGP Fingerprint : 19 FB 67 EA 20 70 53 89 AF B2 5C 7F 02 1F CA 8F "The InterNet is the most open standard since air for breathing"

1 0

URGENT: Surveillance Bill Gets New Life - House Vote lLikely TODAY!
by jseiger＠cdt.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(please forward where appropriate) It's not over yet.... The House has scheduled a vote on "suspension" for a 'counter-terrorism' bill TODAY (Friday). Despite media reports that the negotiations had stalled out, house Republicans have apparently worked out their differences and are set to vote on the bill today. The Senate may or may not vote on the measure on Saturday. No one I've talked to knows for sure what's in the bill, though I have heard that there are no encryption provisions and that some of the wiretap proposals have been scaled back. I will post details as I get them. In the mean time, keep those calls coming into Congress. Jonah ** THE FIGHT FOR FREE SPEECH ONLINE CONTINUES TO THE SUPREME COURT ** It's not too late to be a part of history -- Join the Lawsuit <http://www.cdt.org/ciec> -- <ciec-info(a)cdt.org> -- Jonah Seiger, Policy Analyst Center for Democracy and Technology <jseiger(a)cdt.org> 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20006 PGP Key via finger (v) +1.202.637.9800 http://www.cdt.org/ (f) +1.202.637.0968 http://www.cdt.org/homes/jseiger/

1 0

Licensing, Permits, and Freedom
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:23 PM 8/2/96, Cerridwyn Llewyellyn wrote: >Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> argued: > >>As long as they have a license to operate a food dispencing facility (in >>other words they are certifying they are aware of the correct processes for >>such operations) then nobody should have the right to interfere with their >>operation unless with probable cause (ie proof of danger such as bad weenies >>in their hot dogs). This would not apply to individuals or families making >>such food in the same place for their own and NOT public consumption. > >I believe the issue with Food Not Bombs is they didn't get the appropriate >permits, etc, or were denied them, or something. However, I disagree with >you on this point. I think they shouldn't be required to obtain a license, >but everyone whom they serve food to should know that they don't have such a >license. This would equal informed consent. Also, with Food Not Bombs, many >of the people that the food is being served to is also involved in cooking, >distributing food, and cleaning up. I've been told it's exactly like a big >picnic, except for anyone is invited to help and/or eat. It was in fact "Food Not Bombs" which I was referring to in my post a few days ago. My point to the City Council was one of inconsistency (picnic groups not similarly hassled). Also, the use of "permits" to harass/muzzle a group. "Permits" are often used to stop speech and acts which are not considered acceptable. Drawing on my own community for an example, Santa Cruz tried to regulate palm readers, astrologers, mystics, and seers. This eventually fell apart, possibly when the implications became clear to the bureaucrats (the future was already clear to the Cassandras, but nobody believed them). My "Licensed Ontologist" line in my .sig was added during one of the debates about the claimed need to license and regulate persons in various professions. (There are of course the usual other examples, where job unions and cartels stop "outsiders" from participating. Often for ostensibly good reasons, but "guilds" nonetheless. The implications of crypto anarchy for these guilds are left as exercises for the student.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0