December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Death Threats
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(I don't know what the hell this thread has to do with "[NOISE] Kiddie porn on the Internet," so I've changed the name.) At 9:22 PM 9/21/96, Mark M. wrote: >Do you really consider speech to be "dangerous." The law requiring >investigation of threats against the president is a stupid one. The maintainer >of the exploding head page was investigated by the USSS after putting up >computer-generated pictures of Bob Dole's head exploding (Presidential >candidates are also covered under this law). There's too much potential for >abuse. Hey, I'm a candidate for President, too (at least I know of someone who plans to vote for me). Does this mean I am protected against various threats, and veiled threats? Let me know, as I seem to be under attack by certain Russian-developed spambots. More seriously, the whole set of protections the President has is inconsistent with our nominally anti-royalist approach. Of course, America long ago created its own royalty. Even dynasties (how else do you explain Teddy Kennedy getting away with the Mary Jo Kopechne thing?). Actively (and plausibly) threatening _anyone_ is a kind of crime (*), but there is no reason to make special laws covering certain persons. (* Why do I say "actively (and plausibly) threatening _anyone_ is a kind of crime"? Don't I believe in free speech? Well, if I hear that Vladimir G. Nulis says I should be killed, and that he is coming to California to take care of this, I have no compunctions, liberrarian or otherwise, about shooting first at the first sign of his appearance on my property. Understandably, the government does not wish this to happen. Thus, I have no problem with illegalizing direct and concrete threats. General threats, such as "all lawyers should be taken out into the parking lot and garotted" are not specific, direct, and concrete, and hence fall under the free speech provisions.) --Tim May 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."

3 2

Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:03 PM 9/18/96 -0700, John Gilmore wrote: >Judge Patel to Decide if Government Restrictions on >Cryptography Violate the First Amendment >San Francisco, CA -- On Friday, September 20, 1996, Judge Marilyn Hall >Patel will hold hearings in a case with far-reaching implications for >personal privacy, U.S. competitiveness, and national security. Mathematician >Daniel J. Bernstein, a Research Assistant Professor in the Department of >Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science at the University of Illinois at >Chicago, has sued several Federal agencies on the grounds that the >agencies' requirement that he obtain a license prior to publishing his >ideas about cryptography violates his First Amendment right to freedom >of speech. [trimmed] >LEGAL ARGUMENTS > >* Any legal framework that allows a government bureaucrat to >censor speech before it happens is an unconstitutional prior restraint. >The government is not allowed to set up such a drastic scheme >unless they can prove that publication of such information will >"surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our >Nation or its people" and that the regulation at issue is necessary >to prevent this damage. At the risk of being a devil's advocate, let me suggest that you are conceding too much even with the preceding paragraph. The 1st amendment says nothing about preventing speech which (even admittedly) would result in "direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our nation or its people." Indeed, if you follow the news over the last 5-10 years, you see numerous examples of news items getting publicized (sometimes 30-40 years late) which might arguably have cause "irreparable damage." That recent revelation about the POWs being left in Korea would have been one such example. The intentional detonation of that H-bomb in 1954, knowing that prevailing winds would shower thousands of people with fallout was another. The US military's experimentation with chemical weapons on our own people after WWII is another. The fraud of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is another. The Pentagon Papers incident is another. The Tuskeegee syphillis experiments on blacks which ended in 1972 was another. The massive pollution at decomissioned military bases. The Iran/Contra arms smuggling deals, along with the cocaine smuggling stories which are more recently being pursued, are yet another. I could list many more, but won't because of lack of space. But notice that, presumably, each and every one of these incidents was AT ONE TIME kept secret, arguably because it would be better for the country to do so. Thus, presumably it was thought or at least asserted that to reveal them would cause "damage to our nation or its people." The way you've written the paragraph I've quoted above, it appears that you are somehow acknowleding that there are certain circumstances where certain types of speech are controllable because they are "harmful," but you fail to explain how even this constitutional restiction is tolerable. Frankly, I don't see it! What you need to do is to be far more specific about such speech and exactly where it can be controlled. I should point out, also, that this is the second time I've mentioned this. You're doing us a disservice if you concede too much in this area. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: LACC: Re: Australia now has information police
by Julian Assange 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > Hello: > > I have one short, short question regarding this item. I really > hope that you know the anwswer and have the time to answer it. > > 1- International document: any idea who else had signed it? [re COCOM trade agreements] All COCOM countries most likely. That said Australia does not seem to be actively enforcing this relic of the cold war. However around 8 years ago, I recall that the NSA found out about a telephone encrypting device developed here in Australia, and preassured the Australian government to forbid export of the device, under COCOM provisions until it was weakened. At the moment it is politically untenable to enforce COCOM export provisions over cryptographic software in this country. The COCOM treaty is seen, quite rightly, as a U.S barrow which COCOM countries had to sign in order to avoid U.S trade sanctions and tarrifs, but not something that needs to be enforced for smaller concerns (arms shipments are bigger concerns). COCOM is being replaced with new controls, according to the PARI DAILY. (anyone have better details?) PARI DAILY FRIDAY, APRIL 5, 1996 BULGARIA IGNORED AT POST-COCOM TALKS Bulgaria did not take part in the first plenary session of the member-countries of the Wassenaar Arrangement, also known as the New Forum, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mr.Pantelei Karasimeonov told a briefing yesterday. Of all the 28 participants in the session, it was only USA that opposed Bulgaria's participation in the arrangement, a control regime which is to succeed the Cold War's COCOM export controls of technology and equipment usable for military purposes, too, it was revealed at the briefing. Bulgaria has stated many times, and at different levels, its willingness to join the new control regime, the Foreign Ministry spokesman emphasised. In a statement, disseminated by BTA, Bulgarian News Agency, Foreign Ministry pointed out that obviously some of the participants in the Wassenaar Arrangement talks are still under the rather depressing impressions of the suitable conditions created in the country for wide-ranging scot-free ruin and lack of ownership, which apply also to the military-industrial complex and foreign trade in spesial-purpose production. Mr. Karasimeonov said that these impressions have sprung from the period of radical economic and political reforms in the country; he voiced his hopes that the founder-states of the Wassenaar Arrangement would soon change these views of theirs and would put their trust in Bulgaria's export control abilities. Trade Ministry officials said that bilateral talks are due to be held between Bulgaria and each of the New Forum member-countries, which are expected to result in Bulgaria's joining the arrangement. An expert group is to visit USA from April 29 till May 3 aiming to acquaint American high officials with the measures Bulgaria has taken to control trade in spesial-purpose production, Mr.Vladimir Velichkov, head of Internationally Controlled Trade Department at Trade Ministry, said in a recent interview for the PARI Daily. By June an expert group of the Wassenaar Arrangement is due to visit Bulgaria to lead discussions about our participation in the New Forum. -- "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_ +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+ |Julian Assange RSO | PO Box 2031 BARKER | Secret Analytic Guy Union | |proff(a)suburbia.net | VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA | finger for PGP key hash ID = | |proff(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu | FAX +61-3-98199066 | 0619737CCC143F6DEA73E27378933690 | +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+

3 2

Re: Snake-Oil FAQ
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:44 PM 9/22/96, Dale Thorn wrote: >The basic outline for any products included (and don't forget, just >getting included is some sort of endorsement, if you know what I mean) >could be a feature/bug listing, using common crypto terminology, and >could be followed by side-by-side argument paragraphs from the author >and from a reputable review panel. > >The usefulness of the list would probably depend on: >1. The participation of all those names people like to name-drop on this > forum. >2. And/or the quality of the list itself if done without (1.) above. > In this latter case, it could still be useful, but the variances in > evaluation owing to personal bias would be difficult to overcome. The Basic Problem (tm) with a "Snake Oil FAQ" is that the very persons most in need of it won't read it. If those who post descriptions of their "Unbreakable Virtual Whammo-Matic Really Complicated Transposition Cipher" have not bothered to read Schneier or other basic texts on ciphers, why would they bother to read a Snake Oil FAQ? This applies to their customers as well. It doesn't take much reading of standard crypto books to learn why historical codes and ciphers (and their reinvented modern variants) are fundamentally weak, and subject to (usually rapid) breaking with high-speed computers. Once this basic point is realized, all else follows. In other words, there is really no meaningful target audience for a Snake Oil FAQ. If it's just a quick effort, fine. But escalating it into a Major Cypherpunks Project seems like wasted effort. Just point people to Schneier's book and suggest they read and absorb the first several chapters. Then, like the infamous fisherman, they'll be equipped to understand why the Whammo-matic Really Complicated Cipher is neither Virtually Unbreakable nor worthy of spending much time analyzing, and why they should stick with modern ciphers and systems which have been subjected to years of review and attempts to break them. --Tim May 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."

4 3

Re: Evolving algorithm for faster brute force key searches?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:01 PM 7/5/96, jack wrote: >I got an idea last night, maybe this has already been thought of and >tried, but I thought I would give a quick outline of the program I was >thinking of: > >-Specify a maximum key size (assume 1024bits or something) >-Start with an arbitrary key "aaaaaaaaaaaaaa" > >Start a loop > >-create five mutations of the key >-use each key to try and decrypt a few bytes of the message >-run a (or some) statistical analysis tests and come up with a value >for how 'random' the decrypted bits are >-Pick the key that produced the least random ouput Schneier actually used my explanation of why this won't work in the Second Edition of his book. Basically, with any strong. modern cipher, there is no concept of "getting closer" to a solution. Thus, the "fitness landscape" for a brute-force-needed cipher looks like a flat plain (if portrayed in two dimensions), with the solution/key being a single-point spike rising from the plain. No hill-climber can find this spike except by landing right on it, which means evolutionary programming, genetic algorithms, simulated annealing, and neural net sorts of approaches are worthless. With some weak ciphers, this might work. I think Schneier makes some comments about who's looked at this. But weak ciphers are not too interesting. --Tim May 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."

3 2

William Torbitt (pseudonym)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:53 AM 9/22/96, Dale Thorn wrote: >A few years ago, William Torbitt (pseudonym) wrote in part: "Penal codes >have had two historic purposes - to deter crime and reform the offender. >.....However, when the head of the National Police agency joins with a >handful of other govt. leaders, and they both in turn throw in with >organized crime to murder the president, and the people have an uneasy >feeling that something of this nature has taken place, it is only >natural that crime and violence increase, and the basic deterrent to >crime has broken down." (quote approximate) Presumably the same William Torbitt (psuedonym) who wrote the Samizdat-distributed "Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal." (One of the best treatments of the various swirling connections surrounding the JFK assassination and related CIA-Mob-Giancana-Hughes-Castro-etc. connections.) That Torbitt was a pseudonym has some connection to the themes of our list. It is believed by many--and it sounds plausible to me--that the actual author was a knowledgeable Texas attorney who had gained much familiarity with the facts of the case and, circa 1966-68, wrote his extended pamphlet "The Nomenclature of an Assassination Cabal." Fearing likely sanctions, both professional and personal, he chose not to use his real name, and pamphlet circulated informally, without a formal publisher. (It is not written in a wacko-style, so I don't dismiss it as the ravings of a loon.) I haven't checked to see if its on the Web. --Tim May 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."

2 1

Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:24 PM 9/21/96 -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >At 11:30 PM 9/21/96 -0400, Mark M. wrote: >>I believe there is one section in the Constitution that says that speech >>harmful to national security is not protected under the 1st amendment. >I can't think of what portion of the Constitution you're referring to. But >chances are, somebody else will see this reference and comment. The First Amendment does not contain the phrase "national security" anywhere in it. It does, however, begin with a rather explicit "Congress shall make no law" which it applies to a bunch of things. However, the body of the Constitution does say there should be a Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court has (fairly reasonably) given itself the job of deciding what's Constitutional and what's not. The Supremes have, over the years, made a bunch of generally outrageous decisions about what kinds of speech are protected by the First Amendment and what kinds aren't, though their opinions have been gradually improving since some of the really appalling ones earlier in the century. By the way, alt.federal.judge.bork.bork.bork has recently come out with a book in which he discusses issues like censorship. He's in favor of it. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

6 6

No Subject
by Craig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject Line: Infowar.Com > ---- D I S T R I B U T E W I D E L Y ---- > >WWW.InfoWar.Com is now open. > >The Definitive WWW site for Information Warfare & Information Security. Created and managed by Winn Schwartau, Infowar.Com is designed to be "The" place to be seen and be heard. Be seen. Be linked. Our goal: To be a clearinghouse for all IW and InfoSec. > >News. Infowar. Articles. Discussions. The Latest. Experts. Reviews. Opinion. >Civil Defense. Info-Security. Controversy. Privacy. Crypto. Chats. List-servers. >Espionage. Military. C4I. Civil Defense. Global. > >Be seen. Be heard. Globally. Dynamic. New. Interactive. > >Yes, we're starting off small - manageable, but within a few short months look >at what we will have - on-line, bringing in tens of thousands of infosecurity >and information professionals. With your help, we'll be everything you want us >to be. > >* Timely Articles and Commentaries >* Military/Government infowar treatises hot off the press >* News that concerns you - As it Happens! >* Infowar.Com List Server and Private Discussion Groups (to begin with) > Infowar > Civil Defense > Terrorism > OSCINT > Hacking >* Over 600MB of on-line utilities for the Net >* On-Line Searches for Infowar and Infosec >* The Infowar and Infosec Papers That Set Standards >* Press Releases >* What's New!?! >* Audio Conferences >* Video Conference >* Specifications and Standards >* Product and Company Listings - Worldwide >* Contracts and Bids >* Specifications >* New papers and reports in all areas of Infowar >* Extensive International participation >* Compilations of the Best of Infowar and Infosec >* Hundreds of Security Utilities >* Over 50 different encryption tools >* User customized search engines for the entire site >* Interactive Infowar-Chat lines >* Who's Who of Infowar and Info-Sec >* Gigs and gigs . . . . >* And more . . . stuff we won't even tell our mothers about . . . yet . . > >We've always been interactive minded and we will count upon our users and >sponsors to guide us to provide better and better service. But, we will not >react to editorial extortion, either. <G> We have made our reputation on >brutal honesty and opinion and we will keep it. Might lose an advertiser from >time to time, but those is the breaks. > >We hope to see you there, contributing, interacting, discussing, commenting, >posting and contributing. Contributions: betty(a)infowar.com or webwarrior(a)infowar.com All submissions are gratefully accepted however, will be reviewed for relevance and content prior to being published. IF - you hear something hot...see something hot..... be a good Warrior and call Betty at 813-367-7277 and leave a message that you have e-mailed the info. That way we can be sure to look for it and get it out on distribution. You want to add some Warriors to our ListServ: betty(a)infowar.com or webwarrior(a)infowar.com > >If you happen to be interested in Infowar.Com Sponsorship opportunities, please give us a ring: Our rates are very competetive.... and get on the bandwagon so we can *lock-in the rate. > >Betty(a)Infowar.com >or call >813.367.7277 > >Thank You > >Winn Schwartau >and the terrific folks at >Infowar.Com > Winn Schwartau - Interpact, Inc. > Information Warfare and InfoSec > V: 813.393.6600 / F: 813.393.6361 > Http://www.infowar.com > Winn(a)infowar.com >

2 1

Re: Snake-Oil FAQ
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:34 PM 9/23/96 -0400, Mark Rogaski <wendigo(a)pobox.com> wrote: >I disagree, I think AC is a pretty scary book for the kind of people who >need the Snake-Oil FAQ. I think the primary target audiences are IS >professionals who are considering integrating crypto into their data >communications and end users who want to send encrypted mail. Neither Besides, it's a good excuse to bash that great purveyor of snake-oil, MicroSoft. Are there _any_ Microsoft products that have "password protection" or "encryption" features that aren't totally wimpy? Word and Excel come with stuff that might keep out your kid sister, but probably wouldn't keep out _my_ kid sister... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # You can get PGP software outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto

1 0

Ways to deal with cops
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Way to go! >Path: ...!news1.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.sgi.com!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!info.ucla.edu!nnrp.info.ucla.edu!oak!zeleny >From: zeleny(a)oak.math.ucla.edu (Michael Zeleny) >Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.guns,ca.politics,la.news,misc.legal >Subject: Man Facing Death Sentence For Killing Trespassing Cop >Date: 20 Sep 1996 17:46:21 GMT >Organization: ptyx >Lines: 62 >Message-ID: <51ul9d$21e4(a)uni.library.ucla.edu> >NNTP-Posting-Host: oak.math.ucla.edu > >Do you wonder what happens to civilians unwilling to lie down for >police abuse of power? Daniel Allan Tuffree, 49, a former high school >teacher, the testimony in whose trial ended yesterday, has been charged >with first-degree murder in the shooting death of Officer Michael Clark >13 months ago, after three warrantless police officers traipsed on his >front lawn with their guns drawn -- to check on his welfare. The case, >which is presided over by the notoriously prosecution-friendly Judge >Allan L. Steele in the Simi Valley courthouse that hosted the acquittal >of Rodney King's uniformed assailants in their first trial, will go to >the jury in early October after jury instructions are drawn and lawyers >make their closing arguments. Tuffree faces a possible death sentence. > >Clark was one of three police officers sent to Tuffree's home on >August 4, 1995, after reports that the former Chatsworth High School >teacher had been drinking alcohol, taking Valium and was possibly >suicidal. A gunfight began shortly after police walked into Tuffree's >backyard and started asking him questions, refusing his order to leave >his property. Defense attorneys have argued that Clark fired on >Tuffree first and that police acted improperly. They called expert >witnesses who testified that police should have walked away once they >realized that Tuffree was not hurt or suicidal. > >Lou Reiter, a retired Los Angeles Police Department commander, >testified that Simi Valley police officers made one mistake after >another when they came to Tuffree's home. According to Reiter's >testimony, the three police officers were working with third-hand >information when they arrived at the scene. Before taking action, >they did not devise a plan in case a confrontation occurred with >Tuffree, who was a known gun owner. And they did not announce >themselves before walking into Tuffree's backyard with their guns >drawn, all actions that could have aggravated a distraught man who >reportedly had been drinking alcohol, taking Valium and who had >stopped answering his phone. "No one had anticipated or made an >evaluation of what would happen if things didn't go right," said >Reiter, a private consultant on police procedure who was an LAPD >officer for 20 years. He also told the jury that he believed Simi >Valley Police Sergeant Anthony Anzilotti to have been negligible in >his role as the supervising officer on scene that day, testifying that >"in [his] opinion [Anzilotti] didn't supervise at all." And he said >Clark erred by not walking away from Tuffree's kitchen window once he >realized the former schoolteacher was conscious and not injured: "The >emergency is over; therefore, the right to be in his backyard is >over." > >Reiter denied the claims of two other police experts called by the >prosecution, both of whom testified that Simi Valley police officers >sent to Tuffree's house last summer had a "moral, ethical, and legal" >obligation to follow through with the request to check on Tuffree's >welfare, having no choice but to get close enough to make direct >contact with Tuffree in order to ensure that he was safe. But Reiter, >who retired from the LAPD in 1981, said that "officers always have a >choice," explaining that there are situations in which police can walk >away once they have determined that a person is safe. "There are a >lot of people in their homes that are not confronting a medical >emergency who just want to be left alone," he said. > >See http://www.latimes.com/HOME/COMMUN/NEWS/ZONE26B for more information. > >Cordially, - Mikhail | God: "Sum id quod sum." Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum." >Zeleny(a)math.ucla.edu | Popeye: "Sum id quod sum et id totum est quod sum." >itinerant philosopher -- will think for food ** www.ptyx.com ** MZ(a)ptyx.com >ptyx ** 6869 Pacific View Drive, LA, CA 90068 ** 213-876-8234/874-4745 (fax)

1 0