December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

The "Secure" version of Netscape for Linux is *NOT*
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just installed the "secure" version of Netscape off of the "US Only" download site. Seems that it is actualy the international version and not the 128 bit version. How many people have downloaded this version only to find that they downloaded something that they could have downloaded faster from a mirror site? How many people have had their downloads slowed down due to people downloading insecure Linux versions from the US only site? I think I have a justifiable reason to be pissed. Another waste of my time... --- 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 "Microsoft -- Nothing but NT promises."

3 2

s/key for linux?
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm having difficulty getting the few releases I've got of S/Key to compile under linux. Anyone know of a release that's already been ported? Thanks... //cerridwyn//

2 1

"adjust your attitude with their billy club"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:28 AM 7/31/96, Alan Horowitz wrote: >I am a strong libertarian. Sell crack cocaine, rent your pussy to horny >middle-aged businessmen, do any non-violent, >non-damaging-to-others-property you want, but damn well maintain public >order and decorum. Or I will scream to my councilman for the cops to >adjust your attitude with their billy club. When the local cops adjust my attitude with a billy club for dressing like a hippie and lounging around in a public place that my taxes have helped pay for, I'll remember that a "strong libertarian" said that he was doing the right thing. .... In my town, the City-State decided to crack down on the homeless by arresting people for "giving away food" in a public park. They charged the soup providers with various failures to have Health Department permits and for not having a permit to operate a restaurant, pay various fees to the City-State, and so on. I went to a City Council meeting when this was happening (1991-2) and spoke up in the public comment part of the meeting. I pointed out that the very same park at which these "food criminals" were doing their dastardly deeds in was a park at which other people and groups were cooking hot dogs and hamburgers, ladling out bowls of chili, serving potato salad, and generally "distributing food." All, of course, without benefit of licenses, health inspections, OSHA inspections, and so on. I suggested arrests of the picnic groups begin immediately, using the same exact charges used to harass the homeless helpers. The Council members, most of them leftist liberals, had no answer. --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."

3 3

RE: Violation or Protection? [OLYMPICS]
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:51 PM 7/31/96, Blanc Weber wrote: >>From: tcmay(a)got.net >> >>If the Centennial Park is a public place, not a private one, as I believe >>to be the case, then it seems to me a person is within his rights to turn >>down the offer to be inspected, frisked, interrogated, etc. >........................................................ > >But if the park was a private one, would it make any difference? Of course, which is why stores can have "bags will be searched" policies, restrictions about atire, and all sorts of other policies which are not allowed in public places. Disneyland is a private park, and has rules which are not the rules a public park can have. Put it this way, "My house, my rules." > I mean, either it is, or it isn't, a "right". When could it really be >okay to violate that definition. How are the law enforcers to do their >job if they can't intrude into your shopping bag, when it's a critical >National Emergency. This is what Denning is always referring to. One needs to distinguish "rights" vis-a-vis government actions, and the policies of private actors. The usual point about "freedom of speech" applies. E.g., Blanc has "freedom of speech," but not inside Microsoft. Not to lecture, but this frequent blurring of public vs. private areas, of government vs. corporate actions, of "property rights," is hurting the cause of liberty. --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."

2 1

Re: FAA to require transponders on all aircraft passengers
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:56 8/3/96, David Lesher wrote: [Quoting Lucky] >> According to KCBS, a local radio station, the FAA has closed a long >> anticipated deal with a manufacturer of transponder devices. The goal of >> the system to be deployed nationwide is to match aircraft passengers to >> their luggage and thereby identify unaccompanied luggage on board an >> aircraft. > >I thinks they have mixed their marbles.... Nope. This from Micron's website: Editorial Contact: Julie Nash, Micron Technology, (208) 368-4400 Web Site URL http://www.micron.com Fax-on-demand: 800-239-0337 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MICRON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ANNOUNCES AGREEMENT WITH THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Boise, Idaho, August 2, 1996 - Micron Communications, Inc., today announced a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRDA) with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop a model Positive Passenger Baggage Matching (PPBM) system. The objective of this PPBM system is to automatically recognize when baggage has been placed on an aircraft without an associated passenger. Micron Communications intends to utilize remote intelligent communications (RIC) technology developed for its MicroStamp family of products to design a security system which will enhance current systems and provide efficient tracking of passengers and baggage. "Micron Communications is proud to be associated with products that are designed to help increase the safety of airline travel, while providing operational benefits to the industry and increasing the convenience to the traveler," said John R. Tuttle, Chairman and President of Micron Communications, Inc. "Our experience in microelectronics and systems design should enable us to develop systems that use tomorrow's technology in finding solutions to these important problems." "Once again, an Idaho company is breaking new ground," Senator Larry Craig said. "As chairman of the Congressional-White House Task Force on Terrorism, its exciting to see this kind of high-tech advancement in security being developed here at home by Micron Communications, Inc. The Positive Passenger Baggage Matching system is exactly the kind of common-sense answer we are looking for to improve airline safety and give us all greater comfort when we fly in the future, " Craig continued. Current MicroStamp-based products include the MicroStamp credit card-sized device and the MicroStamp Engine in a 20-pin, small-outline integrated circuit (SOIC) plastic package. Micron Communications believes that the MicroStamp integrated circuit is the first wireless communications technology to integrate a single-chip CMOS solution, which includes a direct sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) microwave-frequency radio operating at 2.45GHz, a microcontroller, and low-power static random access memory (SRAM). It also contains a synchronous serial port allowing additional memory expansion. RIC units are different from RFID tags because they have a central processing unit (CPU), memory and microwave on board. This combination allows RIC units to perform more applications than low-performance RFID tags that use older technology at lower frequencies. MicroStamp RIC units are more powerful and more flexible than RFID units. They are also smaller and cost less than other RIC units of comparable performance. Systems integrators, original equipment manufacturers or end users interested in the MicroStamp family of products should contact Micron Communications Customer Service department, 1-888-MSTAMP1, (888-678-2671). Micron Communications, Inc., is a subsidiary of Micron Technology, Inc., whose common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (NYSE) under the symbol MU. MicroStamp and MicroStamp Engine are trademarks of Micron Communications, Inc. -- 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.

2 1

Re: List for crypto minus political rubbish
by Matts Kallioniemi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 15:25 1996-08-02 -0500, W.K. Woelbeling wrote: >I am looking for a source of info on crypto. While this list is of interest >to (many) people, I find that the amount of political ranting outweighs any >nuggets of information concerning cryptography. Pointers? > >Bill Just about everything on cryptography has already been said far too many times. Just read Applied Cryptography and be done with it. What remains to discuss is politics, psychology and marketing. How do you get people to use the cryptography that already exists and how will the authorities react when people do use it. Matts

1 0

Re: Internal Passports
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:02 AM 8/1/96 -0700, tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >Question (a la "Wired"): "When will the United States introduce an internal >passport?" >May: "2005, but they won't call it that." Stewart: "Last week, but they didn't call it that." According to Alaska Airlines, the FAA's policy as of last week has switched to a mandatory policy that if you don't produce government-issued photo-id, you can't get on the plane; the previous policy had been more flexible. The folks stamped my ticket "Documents Verified" - looks suspiciously similar to "Papers In Order". (Which they actually weren't, on my return trip; I handed her my work ID in the same plastic carrier as my train pass, and handed her the credit card I'd bought the tickets with explaining that I wasn't on government business and asking when had the policy changed and commenting. And the nice Rent-A-Xray-Technician who asked if I minded if he searched my computer bag was totally confused when I said "Yes, of course I mind.") You can still travel in a car if someone else is driving, and you can still get on a train without identification, but without papers you can't fly or drive, and you can't ride a horse on the freeway except in the back of a horse trailer. Driver's licenses were the beginning of a long downhill trend. I wonder if they'll still accept an American passport; the country has obviously been taken over by Pod People while we weren't looking.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

6 5

Re: List for crypto minus political rubbish
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Aug 03, 1996 14:38:59, 'Matts Kallioniemi <matts(a)cyberpass.net>' wrote: >Just about everything on cryptography has already been said far too many times. >Just read Applied Cryptography and be done with it. What remains to discuss is >politics, psychology and marketing. How do you get people to use the >cryptography that already exists and how will the authorities react when people >do use it. An exemplary air-clearing for a smoke-filled agenda; and two challenging questions which may pose a High Noon amongst munitions-slingers. Bravo, Matts, for cryptic concision.

1 0

Re: FAA to require transponders on all aircraft passengers
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This does seem to be real. CNet has a few more details: http://www.cnet.com/Content/News/Files/0,16,2031,00.html At 08:28 PM 8/2/96 -0700, you wrote: >According to KCBS, a local radio station, the FAA has closed a long >anticipated deal with a manufacturer of transponder devices. The goal of >the system to be deployed nationwide is to match aircraft passengers to >their luggage and thereby identify unaccompanied luggage on board an >aircraft. > >Transponders will be affixed to all items of luggage and all passengers. If >the system discovers a transponder on the luggage in the cargo hold without >the corresponding transponder on the passenger on board, an alarm will >sound. I am not making this up. > >As many of you know, I have long predicted subcutaneous transponders to >become widely deployed in the near future. First for child identification >and monitoring of criminals, then, as the children grow up, as universal >ID, driver license, proof of eligibility for employment, PIN substitute, >etc. > >Today, we moved a step closer to this future. > >[Note that the transponders will have to be affixed to the passenger. An >example would be a hospital style bracelet that stops working when removed. >Why embedding the transponder in a hand carried item, such as a card, will >not work is left as an exercise to the reader. Even an affixed device does >not provide perfect security. You'd really have to embed the transponder in >the body at an early age to make removal nearly impossible.] > > > >-- 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: Tolerance (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Sat, 3 Aug 1996 06:44:54 -0700 (PDT) > From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)eff.org> > Subject: Re: Tolerance (fwd) > > > > It isn't my interpretation. Perhaps you should have paid better attention in > > class. These issues have never been tested in a court of law in the US in > > regards to computer networks and their special nature. > > [...] > > > That is a two edged sword. Where did you get your law degree? My lawyers > > both got theirs at UT Austin Law School. Both are federal lawyers and both > > have argued before the Supreme and are currently allowed to argue before the > > Supremes. > > > I've deleted most of Jim's meanderings above, mostly because I'm > fascinated by the credentialism in the graf above. What credentials mine or the lawyers? > He implies, without directly saying so, that "his lawyers" have weighed > in on this dispute and agree with him. Hmmm, I looked back over this and I fail to see where this interpretation can be taken. Perhaps you as well read more than is on the page. If you would like to address specific issues then perhaps there would be some basis for dialog. > Of course this is hardly likely; > he advances no coherent legal theory. (Except the "public forum" > argument, which might apply to Usenet, but not cypherpunks.) I have advanced several coherent theories. My primary one being that if the 9th and 10th are included in Constitutional interpretation many of the issues, such as crypto and gun ownership, become trivial issues to resolve. As to if it applies to cpunks and other similar 'private' resources, we will just see how the court cases fall down the road. > This is attempted proof by credentalism. I call him on it. Not any more than the original comments I was responding to. Anyway, what is yoru credentials to 'call' me on it? While it may be true that you don't agree with my views that hardly carries the weight to dismiss those views out of hand. You sir, are not the legal benchmark in this country. I am simply trying to change something I see as unjust. > Okay, Jim, what _do_ your lawyers say on this? Have you asked them? I, > too, have an attorney, a civil liberties specialist and a graduate from > Princeton law. So what? Yes, I have asked them, both. They both agree that the issues that I raise have NOT been tested in a court of law in this country (or any other) and that it is possible that the inclusion of the 9th and 10th in a civil liberties case could prove quite unsettling. They have also warned me that quite a bit of current legal precedence is in fact against my views. I accept this, just as the folks who fought for womens suffrage or the end to slavery fought against societies which enacted laws and policies that while accepted by the vast majority as the status quo were never the less wrong. If my views were the commen standard we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

1 0