December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: I@Week on crypto export loophole 6/24/96
by Will Rodger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >As I see it, the most important issue is not the legal status of the one >actually doing the export/mailing, but in fact the organization which is the >recipient and thus, the beneficiary of this act. _THAT_ organization will >be well-identified, yet will not have done anything obviously illegal. Is >there any indication that Baker was trying to distinguish between the one >physically mailing it, and those receiving it? Yup. He was speaking only of the US company. As you mentioned, odds of anyone getting caught are fairly low in many cases, but even lower for anyone outside the US. The odds the US would go after a foreign company would seem pretty remote, unless based in a country that strongly suppported US policy. The UK comes to mind, but few others. I'll leave it others to decide who else should be on that list. Will -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMebLF0cByjT5n+LZAQF3Owf5AbJCUK/9sbaUGDVV4eZcqggSuOgH+ubr fbx3W7HXaXcAlqvATFRt+mw5h6GMubNrRCC+Ka6CJYC60QESWnHCw8/XX000I2UQ ucBwRMTID+KZuNHN9vD4/hE+JBLkWDQyu2S4IDWkCR0+7UJDFQQ9z3kSVmqgczlB jGyOtUwVpNHETg0yGreuQVCMz6gzxX1eZf0Hv38BJQqD8ROOLVCmYC1grRlrltRV VJqRohsVustzqgu35OoKKzZES3hJxqvmXaNHIDMKhZmnbeHiZeAKs0tQ9hJz7Znp oNAGcwIugB7S7mANIr6bd0EPHiljOP2Ipe13LgMAtkhidipTDQgtRQ== =6+G6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Can the inevitability of Software privacy be used to defeat the ITAR?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:27 PM 7/12/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 9:21 PM 7/12/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote: >>> could claim that MIT came very close to violating ITAR, but the same claim >> >>"The ITAR do not apply to books" > >I'm not sure the exact legalities apply here. I think it is more like the >mob pressuring business men for protection and punishing those who do not >comply. And that's what "our" government's coming to! Does anybody still think that they're not going to deserve what they get? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto:
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:23 PM 7/12/96 -0400, Bob Palacios wrote: >----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _____ _____ _______ > / ____| __ \__ __| ____ ___ ____ __ > | | | | | | | | / __ \____ / (_)______ __ / __ \____ _____/ /_ > | | | | | | | | / /_/ / __ \/ / / ___/ / / / / /_/ / __ \/ ___/ __/ > | |____| |__| | | | / ____/ /_/ / / / /__/ /_/ / / ____/ /_/ (__ ) /_ > \_____|_____/ |_| /_/ \____/_/_/\___/\__, / /_/ \____/____/\__/ > The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 27 >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 27 July 12, 1996 >(1) NO NEW NEWS ON ENCRYPTION - VP GORE REITERATES SUPPORT FOR KEY ESCROW > >Despite the growing pressure from Congress, privacy advocates, the computer >industry, and the public for the reform of US encryption policy, the >Administration continues to embrace its Clipper III key-escrow encryption >proposal. Bob, I think I'd feel a lot better about CDT if you'd explicitly withdraw any support for the Leahy encryption bill. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: I@Week on crypto export loophole 6/24/96
by Will Rodger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:03 PM 7/13/96 +0200, you wrote: >Will Rodger wrote: >> >> The odds the US would go after a foreign company would seem pretty remote, >> unless based in a country that strongly suppported US policy. > >Er, right ... Just like they don't go after the Swiss bankers who >choose to have dealings with Columbians, or German businessmen who >have dealings with Cubans ... > You're right. I should have be more specific: I was thinking the odds the US could successfully prosecute a non-US citizen for violating those laws seems pretty remote if that person was from a country not in agreement with US crypto policy. "Go after" is a bit vague. Shame on me. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMefTA0cByjT5n+LZAQFPIAgA1CePSpY1wJm8CCQEloxIZMQMXNuaOC3U Un6JpPtIIDY8X/uSFP7wg8Mgbt+bKBNp1Ehgx6dPMavs8JnMTQWZGGuSDlIdc+5Y 41sTEA6ig6iIls3NqnnVz+0F6JTRF20gKCR1KH++7EdG/zJKJJN833N9NU4QP3od vXQ8jkaNILWzawsh83d9ZngC3ublDFU9onDOx6XIJAoSFNUn39hN8198BCtixCSq FzIDsR2cuiWe4k1PcrUAtKCOlqRxjNqrgc/sy5Gf56qIdjbgJ/rfvO9Rf6JVFZ3i 6dIqw37OEZZ89+pm5hWnjjRQUj2O3oFgO6psBdLkfXkYF6w9ryVbAw== =+1IU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

e-mail spam solution by Bryce Re: ADMIN: Please ignore HLD publishing
by Bryce 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [this is an e-mail reply to a Usenet post, carbon-copied to cypherpunks list.] In comp.os.linux.announce you, Lars Wirzenius <liw(a)iki.fi>, wrote: > >Meanwhile, I'm beginning to feel rather annoyed by the general spam >problem, especially e-mail spam. Me too. > During the worst days, about half of my non-mailing-list mail is spam. > I am in the process of installing a filter that will make it more > difficult to reach me via e-mail. I am going to require strangers to > use a password in the subject line to reach me (people I know will be > put onto a whitelist). It will be easy to get the password, but > I doubt that spammers will bother. This filtering is not in effect > yet. I'll inform you when it is. I have a great idea for an upgrade to your filter, for that fateful day when spammers start using your password: Have your filter reject any incoming mail which is not 1) from one of your white-listed friends or 2) accompanied by a one U.S. Dollar "good faith" deposit. Spammers will not find it worthwhile to send unwanted mail, because it costs them one dollar each time. But people who sincerely have interesting information for you, even if they are not people on your whitelist, can send the one dollar "good faith" deposit with a good chance that you will give the money back to them once you have read their letter. Just another example of how Ecash(tm) is going to improve the Net. Regards, Bryce -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: www.c2.net/~bryce -- 'BAP' Easy-PGP v1.1b2 iQCVAwUBMejncPWZSllhfG25AQEypAQAkiC1O4nab+aLMo6v3stbHUm/VLtHo+lC kIOD+UU+ckc4/vHEMLWgT4LfQ2EH338GxOkA7zgcBe9nhcBxIqvlqU5BurmLie/X j7xXFcQTzf+D+fIaD3xBjQrs/g2oOwqiGrCKCkEf3MWzYu1J7Bw1W458vjziizyu +Q8VBY6cVV0= =nRLB -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: ANNOUNCEMENT: PGPfone Beta 7 Now Available for Download
by Harry Hochheiser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 12 Jul 96 at 21:31, Arun Mehta wrote: > At 23:38 10/07/96 -0700, Will Price wrote: > >ANNOUNCEMENT: PGPfone Beta 7 Now Available for Download > > Sorry if this has been discussed before (please point me in the > right direction if that is the case), but VSNL, my government-owned > ISP (which also has a monopoly on all international traffic) made me > sign that I will not use my Internet connection for voice traffic. > Is there any way they could find out if I were using PGPfone, or > rather, could I prevent them from finding out? Arun: I can't give you a definitive answer here, but I'll take a shot. Most Internet telephony systems use UDP packets to transfer speech, since the lower overhead of UDP (as opposed to TCP) allows for better throughput. I assume (but I'm not certain) that PGPfone works the same way. Unfortunately, most of your other TCP/IP communication will be based on TCP packets. Therefore, it's theoretically possible for your ISP to monitor your traffic, watching for large numbers of UDP packets. While a large amount of UDP traffic wouldn't _prove_ that you were using Internet telephony, they might _assume_ that the UDP traffic was voice traffic. It all depends on how sophisticated and heavy-handed they wanted to be about it. Now, I don't know if PGPfone uses UDP. However, if it did, it would be as easy to detect as any other Internet telephony product. An encrypted bunch of UDP bits is as easy to spot as an un-encrypted bunch, even if the contents can't be interpreted. I hope this helps. If any of this content is incorrect, my apologies. -Harry --------------- Harry Hochheiser harry(a)tigger.jvnc.net 08 3A B5 F6 47 7F C7 C4 28 B4 8D D2 2E DF F6 1E

1 0

Good dictionary files?
by Sentiono Leowinata 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As many people say, a good password cracker is very dependent on the dictionary file(s). When one has a very good dictionary file(s), the chances of password being cracked is bigger. I am wondering if someone can tell me where I can get good dictionary file(s). Search on the web result to nothing. I have one large dictionary file (about 14Mb) to check it, but I still not feel comfortable to say it's a good one. This might be off topic from cryptography, but until we can reverse engineer (decrypt the crypt or crypt(3)) functions, nothing we can do but to rely on those good dictionaries. Thank you and I apologize for anyone who might get offended by my post. Regards, Sent.

2 1

Re: MIT harassed over publication of PGP book
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal, would such review have any material effect on MIT behavior? I appreciate the point about the sneakiness of the State Dept. However, I can't imagine publication of the next PGP source (or whatever) to be funded by Sandia. I would also hope they would have no fingers into any crypto research. Prior review of crypto research publications is what Adm. Inman wanted back in 1978, in response to which both Cryptologia and ICAR were founded (from my POV). MIT was a strong force in backing NSA down on its attempt to get prior review of publications and I'd hate to see them knuckle under in any way on this point. - Carl

1 0

Internet Relay Chat
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it legal to hack IRC??? Just wondering..

3 2

Singapore
by William "Bud" Kennedy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

SINGAPORE (ITN) * Singapore announced rules Thursday aimed at blocking anti-government views and pornography on the Internet, adding to the thicket of laws that regulate books, movies and public discussion here. But authorities insisted the latest rules -- one of the first attempts by any country to screen the Internet -- do not amount to censorship. The government will hand out annual licenses to Singapore's three Internet providers, as well as to political parties that maintain Web sites, groups and individuals who run discussion sites on politics and religion, and on-line newspapers. Beginning Monday, these groups will be responsible for blocking out material deemed objectionable by the government. Violations will result in licenses being revoked. "We are not censoring discussion groups. By registering these groups, we are asking that they behave responsibly," said the Singapore Broadcasting Authority, a governmental regulatory body. The free-wheeling global computer link up has provided the Singapore government a major dilemma. Singapore promotes the Internet as part of its objective to make the city of 3 million people the hub of high-tech industry. One in three homes has a computer, and the number of Internet accounts doubled last year to 100,000. A government plan calls for connecting each home to a computer network by 2000. But the Internet has also brought into Singapore what the government had successfully kept out for years -- criticism of the administration and the judiciary, pornography and discussions on race and religion. About 10 SBA officials will surf the net daily for objectionable material. A government-appointed panel of prominent citizens will decide what is objectionable, said Goh Liang Kwang, chief executive of the Broadcasting Authority. But he admitted that even with regulations, the SBA cannot completely police the Internet. "We don't claim we can regulate the Internet. We just don't want objectionable material to be easily available. We want to keep our immediate neighborhood clean," said Goh. Still, a lot of rules remain vague. Although political parties will need licenses, it is not clear if individual politicians would be allowed to post anti-government views on bulletin boards. The SBA guidelines say it will not allow contents that "tend to bring the government into hatred or contempt, or which excite disaffection against the government." The definition of hatred or contempt has not been spelled out. The government will also ban: -- contents that jeopardize public security or national defense. -- anything that ridicules racial or religious groups. -- the promotion of religious deviations or occult practices. -- the "gross exploitation" of violence, nudity, sex or horror. -- the depiction of "sexual perversions" such as homosexuality. All these are already banned from books, magazines, newspapers, movies and public forums.

1 0