December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: non-secure network utilities - pointers?
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:27 AM 8/14/96 -0400, Perry wrote: > >Sam Quigley writes: >> What cypherpunk-approved (tm) -- that is, cryptographically strong, >> freely available, and well-implemented (reliable) -- network utilities are >> available? I'm willing to agree to US-only license agreement iff I have >> to... > > >Try SSH and friends -- they are a pretty good thing. > >http://www.ssh.fi/, I believe. That is for the commercial version. The free version (for Unix) can be found at http://www.cs.hut.fi/ssh/ . There is also a Windows version in beta, as well as one for OS/2. (There is a Mac version in development, but no pointers on when or where it will be available.) --- 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."

1 0

Re: key escrow idea from David Satelin of MIT Lincoln Labs
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:48 AM 8/14/96 -0400, Matt Blaze wrote: >>Remember, since the phoneco has had no competition, they've never been at >>risk from being shunned by customers who object to this secret cooperation. >>A more "realistic" position, I think, would be to conclude that if there was >>true competition, customers would be able to negotiate varying levels of >>non-cooperation in order to win customers. I suspect that post-Ruby >>Ridge/post-Waco, there would be a substantial fraction of the public who >>would conclude that it cannot trust its own government. >> > >Well, I don't know what went on before 1968, but these days phone companies >don't keep wiretap orders secret because they are being nice to the police, >they keep them secret because the court order for the weretap also orders >them to. Perhaps you aren't aware of this, but when a third party is >ordered to turn over records or access to something, the order often >includes a provision that prohibits them from revealing the order to the >subject. This is not unique to phone records; orders for bank records >frequently have secrecy provisions as well. Well, that's just the problem. These are clear violations of the 1st amendment. The law may authorize a search, but the Constitution is supposed to limits them to "reasonable" ones. And it says nothing about _secret_ ones, either. The effectiveness of the search itself can't possibly be compromised by releasing the fact of the search AFTER it occurs, which means that the inclusion of such a secrecy order can't even conceivably be supported under the US Constitution. Think of this as a two-pan balance: On the one side is the 1st amendment, a very important issue. One the other side is...nothing. Or, perhaps more accurately, no _constitutional_ issues. Remember, the Constitution does not guarantee the effectiveness of the entire investigative process; it merely addresses one portion of it, the search. (and even there, it doesn't guarantee a successful search!) If the government claims that the process is crippled by releasing the fact of the search, then I'm afraid that this is not an adequate reason to violate free-speech rights. (When the famous Miranda warning decision was made by the Supreme Court, cops said that it would cripple their investigations.) You may say, of course, "that's not how they currently interpet it," but my response is simple: Any talk of tolerating any sort of key-escrow (GAK) system must presume that the people running it are no more honest than they are today. If the cops (and the government in general) so generously misinterprets the government's "rights" with regard to wiretapping, there is simply no reason to believe that any restrictions they claim to be willing to respect now will actually be followed once such a plan is approved. Don't try to get out of this: You can't ignore past abuses. And if they were willing to do illegal taps before 1968, this tells you how inclined they are to obey the law. We've been handed an opportunity: The government wants to change its wiretap powers, and unlike previous times the public is actually aware of what's happening and can object. I think we must take this opportunity to entirely re-think the search-warrant/wiretap process. Rather than blindly accept the opinions of crooked judges who got where they are by demonstrating their willingness to "get along by going along," we should strip away all the decades of scheming, and delete the entire process. My opinion is that wiretaps are, inherently, unreasonable searches within the meaning of the Bill of Rights. Interestingly, support for this interpretation was shown when the media stated that Japan's Constitution prohibited wiretapping. This was portrayed as being somewhat of an oddity. But in reality, that Constitution was forced on Japan after WWII, by the US. Curiouser and curiouser, that happened during a time frame (pre 1968) in which wiretapping was illegal in the US, and probably believed to be unconstitutional as well. Since the US Constitution hasn't changed since then, at least with respect to searches, the only realistic conclusion is that the thing that's changed is the interpretation of the US Constitution, and not for any sound reasons either. (That Japanese Constitution, apparently not subject to such convenient re-interpretation, stands as it was when adopted, at least on this one issue.) In fact, the timing for this change is suspicious: 1968 was certainly a rather tumultuous year, what with anti-Vietnam war protests, assassinations and such. Not only in the US, but even more so in France, with the student riots. The motivation to adopt an unconstitutional wiretapping law must have been substantial. And given the fact that public polls on the concept of wiretaps repeatedly show it to be opposed by a majority of the population, I think the burden of proof is on the Denning-types to show that they're appropriate. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Why should we trust the system?
by an681132＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Preiously, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> > <snip> However, hours after it was publicly revealed that the Atlanta > 911 center screwed up, wasting 10 minutes looking up the address of > "Centennial park," <snip> After watching the news during the coverage of the 911 call, I couldn't help but notice the free computer advertisement. I don't suppose that GATEWAY 2000 will be doing too much bragging about supplying systems to the Atlanta 911 call center. Gosh, I wonder what systems my local 911 call center uses? Would they be able to find my address? --****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. Please, report inappropriate use to abuse(a)anon.penet.fi For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help(a)anon.penet.fi If you have any problems, address them to admin(a)anon.penet.fi

1 0

No subject
by an681132＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Preiously, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> > <snip> However, hours after it was publicly revealed that the Atlanta > 911 center screwed up, wasting 10 minutes looking up the address of > "Centennial park," <snip> After watching the news during the coverage of the 911 call, I couldn't help but notice the free computer advertisement. I don't suppose that GATEWAY 2000 will be doing too much bragging about supplying systems to the Atlanta 911 call center. Gosh, I wonder what systems my local 911 call center uses? Would they be able to find my address? --****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. Please, report inappropriate use to abuse(a)anon.penet.fi For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help(a)anon.penet.fi If you have any problems, address them to admin(a)anon.penet.fi

1 0

SSL / Java(tm) Toolkit Available NOW (fwd)
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FYI. ----- Forwarded message from Joel Fan ----- >From list(a)glacier.mcom.com Wed Aug 14 17:52:49 1996 Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 14:35:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 17:37:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Joel Fan <jfan(a)phaos.com> X-Sender: jfan(a)columbia.digiweb.com To: ssl-talk(a)netscape.com Subject: SSL / Java(tm) Toolkit Available NOW Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960814173211.8297A-100000(a)columbia.digiweb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Resent-Message-ID: <"YXOYJ2.0.c67.nPa4o"@glacier> Resent-From: ssl-talk(a)netscape.com X-Mailing-List: <ssl-talk(a)netscape.com> archive/latest/1623 X-Loop: ssl-talk(a)netscape.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: ssl-talk-request(a)netscape.com Hello , The SSLava(tm) 1.0 Toolkit implements the SSL 3.0 protocol in the Java programming language and is available NOW, without charge, for non-commercial use, including testing. Commercial licenses for SSLava are available as well. Please contact http://www.phaos.com/ for more information or send mail to jfan(a)phaos.com. Thanks, Joel Fan ---------------------- Phaos Technology Corp. ---------------------- [Java is a trademark of Sun Microsystems Inc.] ----- End of forwarded message from Joel Fan ----- -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Crypto 96 carpooling from Bay Area?
by Eric Blossom 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, Anybody from the SF Bay Area interested in carpooling down to Crypto? Eric 707-577-0409

1 0

Re: (Off Topic) Re: FCC_ups
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:45 AM 8/13/96 -0700, shamrock(a)netcom.com (Lucky Green) wrote: >>The *real* challenge: how do you support sender- and recipient- anonymous >>phone calls with strong security? Have fun. > >Sender anonymous phone calls are easy. You route them through PipeNet, >assuming every PipeNet node has a telephony gateway. Recipient anonymous >phone calls a harder to implement. Assuming PipeNet is a descendant of the Packet Laundry concept, recipient-anonymous phone calls are also easy - build a meet-me box, AKA conference bridge. Recipient John Doe #3 reserves a conference bridge, sends anon-email to John Doe #6 and John Doe #43, saying "meet me at Bridge7.conference.netphone.com at midnight Zulu time, password 'foobar'" and they all call in. Payment: If the conference bridge is run by a vanilla commercial Internet-telephony service, it may want some sort of non-private payment, but would probably accept phone cards. Otherwise you're stuck with credit cards. If it's run by an enlightened service provider or some sort of punknet, it'll take anonymous digicash. Maybe the host pays, maybe everybody. Or you could digitally record the sounds of dropping quarters in a payphone :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

1 0

HRW letter to Singapore government; German telecom URL
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Attached is the letter Human Rights Watch/Asia sent to Singapore yesterday. Kudos to HRW for taking the lead in calling attention to the actions of the censorhappy Singaporeans. More background is at: http://www.eff.org/~declan/global/ Also, you can find an English version of the German telecommunications act at: http://www.government.de/inland/ministerien/post/tkge00.html -Declan --- August 13, 1996 BY FAX: +65-375-7765 Mr. George Yeo Minister for Information and the Arts 460 Alexandra Road, 37th Story PSA Building Singapore 119963 Dear Mr. Yeo, I am writing on behalf of Human Rights Watch/Asia to protest the recent decision by the Singapore government to establish strict controls on Internet use. The implementation of the Class License Scheme, which, according to a July 11 government news release, "will focus on content which may undermine public morals, political stability and religious harmony,"ensures a leading role for Singapore among international promoters of online censorship. This is a particularly unfortunate role for Singapore, which has been a leader in the development and promotion of Internet use in Asia. It places Singapore in the same category as countries like China, where Internet users must endure onerous restrictions. One of the most unique and valuable characteristics of the Internet is its ability to establish easy, inexpensive and practically instantaneous communication between the farthest points of the earth. By prohibiting connections between its citizens and various Web sites outside its borders, Singapore is in essence removing itself from the global Internet. If, as will surely happen, its example is followed in other countries, the Internet, which held such promise as the world's first truly global medium, will be nothing more than a set of country-specific networks where local prejudices and fears are reinforced by technology. Our specific objections concern Singapore's decision to regulate the Internet as if it were a broadcast medium. Unlike broadcast media, the Internet is the first truly mass medium. Through e-mail, it allows individuals with nothing more than a computer and a modem to express their views to an international audience. Even the World Wide Web differs significantly from a broadcast medium in that individuals are not confronted with a particular site upon connecting to the Web--they may choose whichever sites they choose to visit. As with other forms of Internet communication, anyone may put up his or her own site on the Web. The Singapore government's own use of Web pages demonstrates how the Internet can be used to propound a particular point of view. Its citizens, so long as they are not using their site to incite to violence, should have the same opportunity to express views as their government. As stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. We are particularly concerned that restrictions have been placed on Singaporeans who wish to discuss religious and political ideas online. It is only through unrestricted discussions of such serious topics by all members of society, no matter how unpopular their views, that these subjects become less explosive. Forbidding discussion--in effect, treating its citizens like children--will, on the other hand, ensure that dangerous topics remain just that. We are also concerned that the extraordinarily broad categories of forbidden content, as outlined by the SBA, will encourage arbitrary restrictions on communication. According to the Internet Content Guidelines, the following topics are banned. Public Security and National Defense a. Contents which jeopardize public security or national defense. b. Contents which undermine the public confidence in the administration of justice. c. Contents which present information or events in such a way that alarms or misleads all or any of the public. d. Contents which tend to bring the Government into hatred or contempt, or which excite disaffection against the Government. Racial and Religious Harmony a. Contents which denigrate or satirize any racial or religious group. b. Contents which bring any race or religion into hatred or resentment. c. Contents which promote religious deviations or occult practices such as Satanism. Public Morals a. Contents which are pornographic or otherwise obscene. b. Contents which propagate permissiveness or promiscuity. c. Contents which depict or propagate gross exploitation of violence, nudity, sex or horror. d. Contents which depict or propagate sexual perversions such as homosexuality, lesbianism, and pedophilia. By banning such subjects a chill will be sent through the online community in Singapore, and will render the Internet essentially useless in allowing any kind of serious discussion. In addition to forbidding particular content, the government has also announced that some sites will be banned. Internet service providers were given the deadline of September 14, 1996, to begin using proxy servers--devices that can prohibit connections to specified sites--to connect all their subscribers. Although the government has promised to use a light hand in regulating the Internet, its activities even at this early stage indicate otherwise. A July 12 posting in the Usenet newsgroup "soc.culture.singapore" was reportedly removed at the request of the SBA, who asked local Internet service providers for its removal because it alleged that lawyers at a local law firm were incompetent. The request came, according to the Straits Times, after the law firm complained to the government. Despite the removal from the newsgroup, the message is still widely available to Singaporeans through other Internet sources, indicating that content control will be difficult unless Internet access is restricted even further. We hope that the Singapore government will retract these repressive new regulations, and support the development of an unfettered Internet. Instead of using its power to restrict Internet use, the government could play a truly useful role by devising ways to expand its use to even the most disaffected members of its population. Sincerely, Sidney Jones Executive Director cc: Mr. Goh Liang Kwang, Chief Executive Officer, Singapore Broadcasting Authority Ambassador Bilahari Kausikan, Permanent Mission of Singapore to the United Nations

1 0

Re: Crypto Policy Variant
by Frank Stuart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[...] >Here is Staelin's idea: >(1) You can use any crypto you want, but you must keep a record >of the crypto keys you used. >(2) The government can ask for the crypto keys later, if they have >a court order, just as they can ask for any of your other papers >or documents. You must give the key(s) to them, just as you >must turn over your private papers in such a situation. >(There would have to be an appropriate penalty for losing the >key...) [...] >Is this workable?? [...] Here's my key, your honor. I used a one-time pad to do the encryption. As you can plainly see, the encrypted file that the prosecution made such a big deal about contains nothing but some of my favorite verses from the King James Bible. You shouldn't infer anything from the fact that another key would make the file contain the evil stuff that was alleged (even though it is a bit strange that the last verse ends in the middle of a word). | (Douglas) Hofstadter's Law: | It always takes longer than you expect, even Frank Stuart | when you take into account Hofstadter's Law.

1 0

Re: Capital and Taxes
by Llywarch Hen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Quotes taken from recent Tim May posts here. First we'll assume that economic benefits result in social benefits, otherwise what's the point?: >And the cloud of ideas connected with somehow forcing capital investment to >remain in the U.S....well, the best way to do this is to alter the tax laws >so that America (for example) becomes a magnet for investment. (If one is >looking to help America, that is.) Now the example of how capital gains taxes hinder investment. First we'll portray an income tax as a property tax: >something else that's terribly important: taxes must be paid on other >assets sold to raise the $100K. For example, if I own shares in Intel, >bought many years ago, I have to sell $160,000 worth of Intel stock, send a >$60,000 check to Uncle Sam and Uncle Pete . . . But this was an income tax. The capital gains are taxed at a rate less than earned wages and are free of the regressive social security and FICA taxes. Tim really doesn't want to pay his fair share, and here's the reason: >. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and then send the remaining >$100,000 to my friends. If the new investment *doubles*, my $100,000 gain >is taxed at 38% and I'm left with a gain of about $62,000. >It doesn't take a number theorist to see that I may as well have not even >bothered. So long as I just sit on the Intel stock, no taxes are owed. >Sounds like a no brainer to me. Yep, we've adopted the fuzziest-headed of liberal ideas in promoting government as an agent of change to improve things for Tim and his pals by asking wage earners to subsidize his economic activities by distributing the costs to the public so he can enjoy the profits. But this is just the result of the massive jobs program whose beneficiaries prefer to call the Cold War, MAD, and so on. The most Keynesian solution of the century combined with a not so subtle transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and renamed 'supply-side' so its clients don't have to admit they have been on welfare for the last twelve or fifteen years. Combined with a massive twelve-year capital bull market in which it would have been difficult to lose money, we have a class of people who have confused personal wealth with personal merit and the notion that they did it on their own. Is this simple dishonesty masquerading as intellectual dishonesty or just standard innocent and dim-witted Republican-Libertarian opportunism buttressed by quotations from free-market theologians? >. . . >huge "backlog" of unrealized capital gains (aka gains on paper, but not yet >taxable) is what is being spoken of when people like Jack Kemp and Steve >Forbes speak of "unleashing" the capital gains now tied up due to the high >tax rates. >Personally, I favor open borders--but no public schooling, no tax-funded >handouts, no welfare, no child support, no public hospitals, etc. This supposes that Tim paid the workers hired to clear brush from his land enough so that they could afford private schooling and excellent health care. Two more quotes and from different sources. The aristocratic complaint is quoted in Amabel William-Ellis and F.J. Fisher, M.A., _The Story of English Life_: "The world goeth from bad to worse when shepherd and cowherd demand more for their labor than the master-bailiff was wont to take in days gone by. Laborers of old were not wont to eat of wheaten bread; their meat was of beans and coarser corn, and their drink of water alone. Cheese and milk were a feast to them; their dress was of hodden grey; then was the world ordered aright for folk of this sort. Ha! age of ours, whither turnest thou? For the poor and small folk, who should cleave to their labor, demand to be better fed than their masters." A widely published remark made by Mr. George Soros: "Economic history is a never-ending series of episodes based on falsehoods and lies, not truths. It represents the path to big money. The object is to recognize that trend whose premise is false, ride that trend, and step off before it is discredited." -- Llywarch Hen

1 0