December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:13 PM 11/17/1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > Examples? How about the draft? The privacy protected child has options the others do not. Legal risk okay - beats getting shot. diGriz

2 1

Re: HP announcing some International Cryptography stuff on Monday
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:49 PM 11/15/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >It sounds ominous to me. Another backroom deal, probably for some form of >key recovery strategy, aka GAK. I'd bet GAK too. RSADSI has been working on GAK protocols, so these ones might actually work. I feel as pessimistic about this one as Lucky usually is. At 12:05 PM 11/15/96 -0800, John Gilmore wrote: >Are they the next Big Company to knuckle under to the Feds? Their >pcmcia-with-local-country-surveillance-chip-socket initiative never >seemed to go anywhere. Since I am inherently optimistic, one ray of light may be that the San Jose Mercury News was mentioning the ability to export the system, and then when the necessary licenses (US and foreign) were obtained, turn on the encryption. I guess from this that the encryption is in hardware. Now, software/hardware interfaces are usually fairly simple, so what we have here is a software system with a crypto hook. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The lottery is a tax on | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | those who can't do math. | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | - Who 1st said this? | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

6 5

CDT Policy Post 2.38 - President Takes First Steps TowardsClipper 3.1.1
by Bob Palacios 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ _____ _______ / ____| __ \__ __| ____ ___ ____ __ | | | | | | | | / __ \____ / (_)______ __ / __ \____ _____/ /_ | | | | | | | | / /_/ / __ \/ / / ___/ / / / / /_/ / __ \/ ___/ __/ | |____| |__| | | | / ____/ /_/ / / / /__/ /_/ / / ____/ /_/ (__ ) /_ \_____|_____/ |_| /_/ \____/_/_/\___/\__, / /_/ \____/____/\__/ The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 38 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 38 November 18, 1996 CONTENTS: (1) President Takes First Steps Towards Clipper 3.1.1 (2) Details of the Executive Order (3) How to Subscribe/Unsubscribe (4) About CDT, contacting us ** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact ** Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of <editor(a)cdt.org> ** This document looks best when viewed in COURIER font ** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) PRESIDENT TAKES FIRST STEPS TOWARDS CLIPPER 3.1.1 In a move that leaves major unanswered questions about the privacy of global communications on the Internet, President Clinton has taken the first concrete steps towards implementing the government's controversial key recovery encryption proposal. On Friday November 15, the President appointed an ambassador-level "Special Envoy for Cryptography" and signed an Executive Order that gives the Commerce Department jurisdiction over encryption exports but includes the Justice Department in all such export decisions. These developments do little to change the underlying regulations on encryption that have prevented the development of a strong worldwide encryption standard needed to protect privacy and security on the Internet. The full text of the executive order and other relevant background materials are available on CDT's Encryption Policy Page: http://www.cdt.org/crypto/ Friday's White House announcements demonstrate the Administration's commitment to its dangerous key recovery approach to worldwide encryption. This approach fails to meet the fundamental privacy needs of computer users and industry because: * International communications are still vulnerable since products sold by the dominant U.S. hardware and software manufacturers must conform to U.S. export controls. * Key recovery won't protect privacy internationally and institutionalizes a global government surveillance mechanism without privacy safeguards. * U.S. exports are still controlled and uncompetitive making it harder for the market to develop a secure global encryption standard. The Administration policy, initially announced on October 1st and dubbed "Clipper 3.1.1," leaves Internet users without the technical means to secure their communications or the international legal standards needed to protect their privacy. In other developments this week, Hewlett-Packard and other companies announced preliminary approval to export new "dormant encryption" products, which contain strong encryption that can only be activated with a special license. While this new architecture is expected to make it easier for industry to market encryption products, this technology does not change the underlying privacy problems created by the Administration's export control policy. Granting of licenses to use strong encryption will still be subject to the current export controls limiting key length and requiring key recovery for strong encryption. CONTINUING A DANGEROUS KEY RECOVERY POLICY The Administration's announcements mark the first real steps towards implementing an approach to encryption policy based on the dangerous and untested idea of global key recovery. This approach would institutionalize worldwide governmental access to encrypted communications without providing any privacy standards for electronic communications or stored data. The Administration's approach leaves computer users at risk operating on a global network without the technical security provided by strong encryption or the legal privacy rights afforded here in the United States by the Fourth Amendment and federal law. For example, the Administration policy would not solve the following privacy problems: * International communications are still vulnerable. For example, an American individual doing business with someone in France would still be forced to use weaker forms of encryption, or use key recovery systems that make their communications accessible to law enforcement officials of both countries. * Key recovery won't protect privacy internationally. A Chinese dissident communicating with supporters in the U.S. and fearful of weaker encryption would be to forced to use key recovery. The Administration indicates that such key recovery mechanisms would be based on bilateral key-access arrangements between governments. Even if the dissident's keys were recoverable only in the U.S., such a global key access policy would almost certainly make those keys accessible to the Chinese government. If the United States expects China to assist U.S. law enforcement with key recovery for issues of national interest, such as anti-piracy efforts in China, we can also expect China to require U.S. disclosure of keys to its law enforcement community. * Exports are still controlled and uncompetitive. A Japanese company using exportable U.S. encryption products would be forced to use lower strength encryption -- or use an key recovery agent approved by the U.S. law enforcement community. This is unlikely to help the global market develop a worldwide standard for secure communications. As a result of this policy, computer users all over the world will be left with a lowest common denominator infrastructure that does not provide for either technical security or legal privacy for sensitive communications and data. CDT believes that any workable U.S. encryption policy must be designed to protect the privacy and security of Internet users. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2) DETAILS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER The Executive Order signed by the President on Friday does not change the type of encryption products that will be exportable. Rather, it lays the groundwork for the eventual transfer of encryption export control jurisdiction from the State Department to the Commerce Department pending Final Regulations by both departments. Encryption exports have traditionally been regulated as "munitions" controlled by the State Department. While the Commerce Department is widely viewed as more sensitive to the needs of business and individual encryption users, Commerce is still constrained by Administration encryption policy. Additional provisions of the Executive Order indicate that the Commerce Department's encryption controls will continue to be dominated by law enforcement and national security interests: * New Justice Department role in export review committee -- In an unusual step, the Order adds the Justice Department to the interagency group reviewing Commerce encryption export decisions. * Source code treated as a "product" -- The Order specifically singles out encryption source code to be given the stricter review scrutiny of a "product" rather than a "technology." * Broad definition of export -- The export of encryption source code or object code is extended to explicitly include posting to FTP sites or electronic bulletin boards unless "adequate" precautions are taken to prevent transfer abroad. As reflected by a recent Federal Court finding in the CDA indecency case that Internet users rarely have control over the parties accessing materials via FTP, Usenet, or the Web, this provision could have the chilling effect of preventing most dissemination or discussion of new cryptographic tools on the Internet. The Administration's announcements will have little effect on the existing encryption privacy problem unless the underlying policies governing the export and use of encryption are changed. These announcements do little to address the unanswered questions about how privacy will be protected in the key recovery system envisioned by the Administration. APPOINTMENT OF THE "SPECIAL ENVOY FOR CRYPTOGRAPHY" On Friday the President also designated Ambassador David L. Aaron as the new "Special Envoy for Cryptography." According to the White House, this Special Envoy will have "responsibility to promote the growth of electronic commerce and robust, secure global communications in a manner that protects the public safety and national security. . . . Ambassador Aaron will promote international cooperation, coordinate U.S. contacts with foreign governments on encryption matters and provide a focal point for identifying and resolving bilateral and multilateral encryption issues." Ambassador Aaron is currently the U.S. Ambassador to the OECD. CDT hopes that the new Special Envoy, as a representative of the United States, will work to represent the needs of Americans to communicate privately in the currently insecure global environment. Until now, U.S. encryption representation abroad has been dominated by law enforcement and national security interests. CDT hopes that the new Special Envoy will also consult with the computer user community, consumers, privacy advocates, and industry to promote their need for secure networks worldwide. NEXT STEPS In the coming months, both the Department of Commerce and the State Department must issue rules to implement the Administration's new encryption policy. * The State Department will issue a rule transferring its jurisdiction of encryption licensing to the Commerce Department. * The Commerce Department will issue rules spelling out exactly how it will approve products for export, and what the requirements for approved key recovery centers and key recovery plans will look like. CDT hopes and expects that the Administration will provide an opportunity for public comment in the rulemaking process to allow input from those concerned about privacy and security in the formulation of U.S. encryption policy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (3) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by nearly 10,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to policy-posts-request(a)cdt.org with a subject: subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with a subject of: unsubscribe policy-posts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info(a)cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/ FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Policy Post 2.38 11/18/96 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

REQUESTING INFORMATION :-)
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

f'knights, [hee hee] (as in c'punks)!!! ROTFL After the amusing invasion of Sandy-the-cowboy in his attempt to smash open the already open doors of a virtual (i.e. non-existent) salloon... (in the Freedom-Knights list) (which is a waste of time anyway to watch his show anyway)... :-) I REQUEST INFORMATION on those people who compile "Unemployability Lists" in the USA, as well as ANY other information on this issue. Senator McCarthy managed to terrorize the entire U.S.A. some decades ago with such lists (on real paper rather than on computer files). The "Return to NeoMcCarthyanism" would make an _excellent_ story for the Greek Newspaper "Eleftherotypia", and some bright young Greek journalist could seize the opportunity perhaps even for a Headline Story. Therefore, I include in the recipient list the Greek Newspaper's Internet Supplement address, and... rub my hands, waiting for your replies, folks. :-) We Greeks would like ALL the names of the people who act as "Informers" of companies denouncing those unfortunate Americans who are doomed to unemployment. We plan to give these names to all our friends, so as to warn them WHO to avoid during our summer holidays in Greek Islands. Thank you George A. Stathis (former columnist in "PC Master" magazine, Athens Greece -1990). P.S. I wrote each month's MAIN article at the time, and also the monthly "A.I." program. I am not active in journalism at the moment, which is why someone else is welcome to use the ensuing information. P.S. TRUST GREEKS. We hold a World Copyright on Freedom of Thought for 2.500 years or more, and we even donated it to the Public Domain! :-)

1 0

Re: Does John Gilmore...
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn writes: > Dave Hayes writesL: > > [For those who's assumptions rule their perception: I am *not* arguing > > that all speech should be subsidized. I am merely pointing out that > > the organization that is spending the money to broadcast is > > controlling the speech, hence it is *not* free speech in terms of > > freedom or cost.] > Again, you confuse free speech with free broadcast. Isn't broadcast a subset of speech, especially in this culture? ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it were not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.

2 1

Re: Fuck You Dumb Cunt
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:11 ìì 18/11/1996 -0500, Stephen Boursy wrote: >Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> Brian Davis writes: >> >>> I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property >>> rights. >> >> I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds >> with freedom of speech. >> >> They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's >> a different fla...er...discussion. > > > I believe the posession of property is a priv. to be taken >away if abused. There is no such thing as a 'right' to >property--in fact the very notion seems absurd. > > Steve Philosophically, a lot of people would agree with you Steve, and this would probably place them in dozens of "killfiles", "lists of unemployable persons", plug-pullable minorities of "kooks" and so on, inside the American Section of the Internet. No wonder (after malicious slander I have seen directed against you), that so few people come out with such views. However... Reality has many facets, and property can mean many things. "Abusing property" is also punishable already by some (very capitalistic) laws. I know I deserve everything I own, but do the chicken know it? The chicken who hide behind roles like Gilmore's for instance. Surely the ONLY things we most CERTAINLY own, are our bodies and our speech and other facets of our existence. If people were offered large sums of money to cut off one... hand, they'd probably refuse! :-) Goddess Venus knows why if a lot of people when offered similar similar sums of money to chop off their speech, they obey. I am very troubled at recent events and spend my time wasting yours. But wait till you see what I figured out... :-) (with the Greek paper). George

1 0

BayLISA: Randal Schwartz, Just Another Convicted Perl Hacker (fwd)
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This should be QUITE entertaining. -rich ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: 17 Nov 1996 19:03:17 -0500 From: Laura de Leon <deleon(a)cat.hpl.hp.com> Newsgroups: ba.announce Subject: BayLISA: Randal Schwartz, Just Another Convicted Perl Hacker The BayLISA group meets monthly to discuss topics of interest to systems and network administrators. The meetings are free and open to the public. BayLISA holds monthly meetings on the third Thursday of each month at 7:30 PM PST. We meet at Cisco building J in San Jose, on Tasman Drive near First street. (This is across the street from the room we met in at Cisco last month). See www.baylisa.org for more information. The meetings are also broadcast via MBONE. NOTE: AS OF OCTOBER, WE HAVE MOVED TO CISCO. This is a new location. Thanks very much to Synopsys for hosting us. Schedule -------- November 21 Randal Schwartz: Just Another Convicted Perl Hacker This talk will describe how the speaker became a felon in the process of doing his job as a systems administrator in the well-publicized Oregon v. Schwartz case (victim: Intel). It will include some points about Oregon's current law and the implications of this case on the computer community. There will be a special focus on how to make sure this doesn't happen to you. There will be copies of Randal's new PERL book available if you would like to get one signed. BayLISA Board Elections & member meeting before the regular meeting At 7:00, Elections for the BayLISA board will be held. We encourage all members to vote. If you aren't a member, this is a good time to join (see our Web site) December 19 Our Holiday meeting-- Join us to share goodies and computer horror stories, as well as descriptions of stupid computer tricks. There will be a prize for best story. This is a very informal meeting, and will not be broadcast on the MBONE. January 16 Brent Chapman, Containment Zones (firewalls to keep people in) February 20 Standards efforts and how they will effect you March 20 Paul Vixie [Schedule subject to change] For further information on BayLISA, check out our web site: http://www.baylisa.org/ To get further information on the meeting location, you can also ftp it from ftp.baylisa.org:/location For any other information, please send email to: info(a)baylisa.org If you have any questions, please contact me or the info alias listed above.

2 1

Re: Censor John Gilmore -- EFF is a disgrace!
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear "Info", Mr. Stephen Boursy has made a number of important revelations here. I went back and read nearly all his posts, and I will say this _again_, I have found NOTHING to suggest a lack of reliability in what he says. I am in no way affiliated to Mr. Boursy. I have never seen his face, even. In fact I had hardly noticed Mr. Boursy's presence till only a few days ago, when the forcible expulsion of Russian Mathematician Dimitri Vulis from the "cypherpunks" list fell like a bomb over my naive gullible head. Only AFTER this, I started reading ALL the previous postings that I had missed (about 60-70 % of them). I decided to find out what's happening. I saw OBVIOUS things, and OBVIOUS LIES, since as a lurker who kept ALL previous postings (in the Freedom-Knights list and elsewhere) I could COMPARE my archives to what people claimed. More often than not, to my amazement, what a LOT of people claimed were packs of lies. And against Mr. Boursy and Mr. Dimitri Vulis in particular, entire SEWAGES of lies. ' So I forward this info to... "INFO", the Weekly Net-Supplement of "Eleftherotypia", Greece's largest and most democratic newspaper. The Greek public are rather well informed on the "shiny" side of the Internet. But (the director of "Info" and I) have met and discussed, on two occasions, a few months ago, ALSO the "DARK" side.... Our only problem, is VOLUME. It's like trying to clean up a shit-hole which has spilled the shit even outside itself, in the garden... :-) (The AMERICAN section of the internet, i.e. MOST of it). Here goes... At 07:24 ìì 18/11/1996 -0500, Stephen Boursy wrote: >George A. Stathis wrote: >> >> At 12:07 ðì 17/11/1996 -0600, snow wrote: >>> >>> Boursy is a twit who has lost more accounts that Vulis. > > > I've lost but one account--world.std.com (Software Tool & >Die) soon to be purchased by the conglomorate Plug Pullers >R US. That was entirely related to a local rent control >matter. Now I may be a 'twit'--that is an entirely >different matter. > > >> I would suggest that it is not at all a "safe" indication of personal >> or intellectual _worth_, (of Mr. Boursy or of anyone) "how many >> accounts he has lost". > > I would say though that if one makes false statements as has >this 'snow' character it indicates a lack of credibiltiy. > > >>> Ignore him. > > Something you seem unable to do. Isn't it odd how some will >tell you how insignificant and irrelevant you are only to devote >so much of their time and energy to you. I find that very odd. > > >> 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). > > Well thanks George but I do think his statement speak for themselves. >I'm not in the least concerned someone like him could harm me--in fact >I find it very amusing that he is deemed 'acceptable for that list >while Dr. Vulis is not. > >> 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)... > > > Well that's sort of like Tiny Tim Skirvin and his Global Killfile-- >it does him more harm than those he is after--in fact little Tim reads >my every word. > > >> But what you are doing now, extending the "1-person-blacklist" to your >> number-two-entry (Mr. Boursy) is exactly the thing that I hoped you might >> avoid. > > And based on lies as well--I've only had one account terminated--that >by Barry Shein who lives in Brookline, Ma. and that was entirely do >to real estate industry money and the rent control issue (a statewide >referrendum on rent control which existed only in Brookline, Cambridge, >and Boston)--many millions of dollars at stake there. Shein is simply >a whore. > >> First they kicked out Dimitri Vulis. >> >> Then they slandered and kept out Steve Boursy. > > Well my suggestion--given the size of the list and that we have >numerous sympathizers there--is to have all of their posts forwarded >and publically post them for free and open discussion. > > Steve > > >> >> Then... >> >> When they came after me, there was nobody left to support me. >> >> (You can perhaps realize what this paraphrase is about)... :-( >> >> Sincerily, and with... Sanity of Mind :-) >> George Stathis >

1 0

POC_ket
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WaJo reports today on IBM's tiny pocket computer that transmits data through the body -- to another body or to a device such as a telephone. Invented by Tom Zimmerman, formerly of the Media Lab, it can tell "anything you touch who you are." Being shown at Comdex. The body as a token. How to crack a human? Grab and squeeze out a pass phrase. ----- http://jya.com/pocket.txt POC_ket

3 2

Extreme Left/Right
by James Ormond 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sandy, I always had trouble understanding what people meant when they used the terms "extreme left" and "extreme right". Then, about 4 months ago, I saw a guy define the "political spectrum" the way (he said) it used to be defined before the definitions were corrupted (by whomever wants to divide - and conquer - the people). It made sense to me. A spectrum afterall, at least when we're talking about colors, starts with one type of color and graduates to other, DIFFERENT colors. He defined the "political spectrum" as follows: < ------- LEFT RIGHT -------> Monarchy Oligarchy Democracy Republic Anarchy Rule by: ONE FEW MANY LAW NONE Examples: Dictator, Communist, Lynch Mob Constitutional King Fascist State Govt (US before 1930's) So, according to this definition of the political spectrum, a true "leftist" would be a person that supported the government's usurpation of individual rights, property rights, human rights, privacy rights, etc. Obviously we don't look at it this way. The government only takes away our property (eg. through income taxes), etc. when it's FOR OUR OWN GOOD AND THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRYMEN!!! Sadly, this can only be done (in this country) by violating the US Constitution, and it has been done and it is being done. Unfortuneately, the people that support and seek to defend the Constitution (according to the political spectrum you see above) are on the right (those that support the Republic). It's not politically correct to call yourself a "rightist" these days. Of course, there are not too many Americans (including people that call themselves "leftists" or "liberals") that are willing to publicly admit that they are opposed to the US Constitution. I dare say that most leftists would actually say that they SUPPORT the US Constitution. Many of these people are very concerned about the deterioration of our liberties and spend a lot of time and energy educating themselves and others about how this is being done. I know this because I used to consider myself a "leftist" (although I was never too fond of applying such labels to myself); after all, I had to be SOMEWHERE!!! My political "education" started during the Reagan years. Since that administration was considered "right-wing", I knew I didn't like that (because of the BAD things that it was doing) so I must be the opposite. When I used to listen to a certain "leftist" radio station broadcasting out of New York City, they would talk about "left-wing", communist dictatorships and "right-wing", fascist dictatorships. A dictatorship is a dictatorship!!! The "wing" that it comes from makes no difference!! The way the media defines these things makes no sense; you can't have a dictatorship on BOTH sides of a POLITICAL SPECTRUM no more than you can have YELLOW on both sides of the COLOR SPECTRUM. Maybe I'm totally wrong in my thinking. If I am please try to clarify things for me. I bring this to your attention only because I notice that you often use these terms in some of your e-mails. I think that most "leftists" and "rightists" want many of the same things. We can't get together because the language we use has been so corrupted. Sincerely, Jim.

5 4