December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by Jim Ray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: m5(a)tivoli.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed Sep 11 09:35:17 1996 Mike M Nally wrote: > Declan McCullagh wrote: <snip> > > Under the Knox decision, yes. (Dancing girls in leotards are verboten.) > > Is this going to have some implications for broadcast of the women's > gymnastic events in the next Olympics? Presumably, that depends on how/where/why the cameraman zooms in, if I am reading the case (and/or the judges' minds) right. [OK, I'll shut up now.] JMR Regards, Jim Ray -- DNRC Minister of Encryption Advocacy "As govt.s grow arithmetically, corruption grows exponentially." -- Ray's Law of official corruption. Defeat the Duopoly! Stop the Browne out. Harry Browne for President. Jo Jorgensen for Vice-president. http://www.HarryBrowne96.org/ http://www.twr.com/stbo ___________________________________________________________________ PGP id.E9BD6D35 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 <mailto:liberty@gate.net> http://www.shopmiami.com/prs/jimray ___________________________________________________________________ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMjbAG21lp8bpvW01AQEpKwP+NEJ3CQ3l1D1n4rwU6WZQuZlcEe0pUYJe 7qjyknU9sTrdkmfid7PYCAWYFbLYtmT7nBzPXG/6Cxjzq3Mti6OWzvJheE30qjaY 5zndbdm++E2t4WRCu6GLVDXjjXMk118/HqR0weaNURzhhxVCJkX8WfGjYIcruZhX LguDNUs1//A= =xD4K -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

number theory paper resource
by Andrew Fabbro 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, A L wrote: > I know most of the basics regarding RSA, PGP, and > assorted single pass (?) cyphers. One thing I do not > understand has to do with how RSA sieves large primes, As recently mention in sci.crypt...there's an interesting page with papers on number theory & cryptology at: http://www.ph.tn.tudelft.nl/~visser (~visser/crypto.html is the exact page you probably want) Andrew Fabbro [afabbro(a)umich.edu] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~afabbro/ PGP mail preferred; finger afabbro(a)us.itd.umich.edu for key "A good marketing organization listens to its customers...WE HEAR YOU!" - the National Security Agency -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMjbKlboWkgjb6N6dAQFBHAP/fO8gFhbAoQiB132Aan1ZR4X3hfcoyh3n Io60fqD/5Ys1eGqaqUTxEjC1pZTzVOj5AxXYOBG7/vaqJ+FQelakW7Gs8eHTKqmA 3S4fQnISbUUrJWJf6OK7y7o+BupvZByOQ/wW4tE8xEFrSNYlKZVhFU+H/4+uOEUA QNe8amszNGo= =D6j6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

ALERT: Call the Commerce committee! 1-800-962-3524
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

checking my files and verifying the number this morning, I find that there is an active 1-800 number to call Congress. (Don't know who'se it is, but it reaches the Congressional switchboard...) The Capitol Switchboard can be reached at 1-800-962-3524. At 12:42 AM 9/11/96 -0400, Voters Telecommunications Watch wrote: >======================================================================== > > SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE VOTE TOMORROW IN QUESTION > WHITE HOUSE STALLING; THE NET CAN SAVE THE VOTE > > OFFICES ARE RECEIVING 'LOTS OF CALLS' > MAKE A CALL TO THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE > > September 11, 1996 > > Please widely redistribute this document with this banner intact > until September 30, 1996 > >________________________________________________________________________ >CONTENTS > The Latest News > What You Can Do Now > Background / What To Expect This Week > Description of S.1726, Pro-CODE Bill > Chronology of Pro-Crypto Legislation > For More Information / Supporting Organizations > >________________________________________________________________________ >THE LATEST NEWS > >Sometimes things work out better than imagined. This was the feeling >tonight as I waded through my email from people all over the country that >called the commerce committee. This was the feeling as I heard from visitors >to one Senator's office who, while waiting for a few minutes in the lobby, >listened to the receptionist take two quick calls from netizens calling >about the bill. > >Receptionist, cutting the caller off: "S.1726? Yes, I'll pass that along >to the Senator, thanks. We've been getting a lot of calls." > >Another netizen emailed us saying that he also called his Representative. >It turns out this Rep. has some friends who have co-sponsored HR 3011, the >House version of Pro-CODE. The calls and elevated publicity from this phone >campaign have convinced him to consider co-sponsoring HR 3011. > >This is great, but our success has mobilized the anti-crypto forces >into action as well. The Clinton Administration, who has long opposed >the right of citizens to use non-Clipper encryption, has begun working >behind the scenes to make sure that the vote on Pro-CODE (S.1726) never >happens. > >To have the Senate Commerce committee go on record that encryption exports >should be loosened, against the will of the Administration, would be >an embarrassment to the White House. They have begun pushing hard to >pressure Democratic Commerce Committee members to put the brakes on the >bill, and do everything they can to prevent the vote this Thursday. > >To see the business community, the industry, and the public line up the >Administration would be extremely hard to take and still seem >credible. > >It's crucial that we continue to make noise and ring those phones. By >pulling enough favors with members of the Senate Commerce Committee, it's >possible that the White House could prevent this vote from happening. > >WE MUST NOT LET THAT HAPPEN. Appropriately forward this to everyone you >know until the expiration listed above. Go to work, bug your neighbor >in the cubicle or office next to you. Have they called yet? Bug them >until they do. Call the rest of the members you haven't gotten around to >yet. > >And don't forget to sign the petition at http://www.crypto.com/petition/ ! > >[Rest of alert is the same from last time] >________________________________________________________________________ >WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW > >It's crucial that you call the Commerce committee members below and >urge them to pass S.1726 out of committee without amendments. (This is >also known as a "clean" bill.) Any opportunity for amendments (even if >they are good) opens us up to the possibility of hostile amendments >that could restrict the use of encryption even further than today's >abysmal state. It could even prohibit the use of encryption without >Clipper Chip-like key 'escrow' technology, which includes built-in >surveillance and monitoring functionality. > >1. Call/Fax the members of the Senate Commerce committee and urge > them to pass S.1726 out of committee "cleanly". Do not use email, > as it is not likely to be looked at in time to make a difference > for the markup on September 12th. > > Use the sample communique and directory listing below to make it a > simple TWO MINUTE task. > >2. Sign the petition to support strong encryption at > http://www.crypto.com/petition/ ! Join other cyber-heroes as > Phil Zimmermann, Matt Blaze, Bruce Schneier, Vince Cate, Phil Karn, and > others who have also signed. > >3. Between now and Wed. September 12, it is crucial that you call all > these members of Congress. > > P ST Name and Address Phone Fax > = == ======================== ============== ============== > D SC Hollings, Ernest F. 1-202-224-6121 1-202-224-4293 > D MA Kerry, John F. 1-202-224-2742 1-202-224-8525 > D HI Inouye, Daniel K. 1-202-224-3934 1-202-224-6747 > D KY Ford, Wendell H. 1-202-224-4343 1-202-224-0046 > D WV Rockefeller, John D. 1-202-224-6472 1-202-224-7665 > D LA Breaux, John B. 1-202-224-4623 1-202-228-2577 > D NV Bryan, Richard H. 1-202-224-6244 1-202-224-1867 > D ND Dorgan, Byron L. 1-202-224-2551 1-202-224-1193 > D NE Exon, J. J. 1-202-224-4224 1-202-224-5213 > D OR Wyden, Ron* 1-202-224-5244 1-202-228-2717 > > R SD Pressler, Larry* 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1259 > R MT Burns, Conrad R.(*sponsor) 1-202-224-2644 1-202-224-8594 > R AK Stevens, Ted 1-202-224-3004 1-202-224-2354 > R AZ McCain, John 1-202-224-2235 1-202-228-2862 > R WA Gorton, Slade 1-202-224-3441 1-202-224-9393 > R MS Lott, Trent* 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262 > R TX Hutchison, Kay Bailey 1-202-224-5922 1-202-224-0776 > R ME Snowe, Olympia 1-202-224-5344 1-202-224-1946 > R MO Ashcroft, John* 1-202-224-6154 1-202-228-0998 > R TN Frist, Bill 1-202-224-3344 1-202-228-1264 > R MI Abraham, Spencer 1-202-224-4822 1-202-224-8834 > > * supporter or cosponsor. The bill also enjoys broad bi-partisan > support from members not on the committee including Senators Leahy > (D-VT) and Murray (D-WA). > >4. Here is a sample conversation: > > SAMPLE PHONE CALL > You:<ring ring> > Sen:Hello, Senator Mojo's office! > > You: > >SAY I'm calling to urge the Senator to pass S.1726, the >THIS-> Burns/Leahy/Pressler bill, S.1726 when the committee votes on > it on Thursday. It's critical to the future of privacy, security, > and electronic commerce on the internet. > > Sen:Ok, thanks!<click> > > IF THEY SAY > "The Senator has concerns about the bill", > please answer, > "Please try to work these issues out as it moves to the Senate floor, > but passage out of committee will send an important signal to > the Administration." > >5. To help us measure the effectiveness of the campaign, WE NEED TO HEAR FROM > YOU. Please tell us who you called, and how they sounded. We'll be > passing this information to folks in D.C. who can help apply pressure > where needed. > > $ Mail vtw(a)vtw.org > Subject: I called so-and-so > > Hey, I called Sen. Mojo. He sounded iffy, call in the > reinforcements. > ^D > >6. Forward this to your friends and colleagues in appropriate forums > until the date of expiration at the top. Forward a copy of this to > your Internet Service Provider as well, and ask them to put the following > text in their message of the day (motd), or on their WWW page: > > ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT > > The U.S. Senate will be voting on a proposal to encourage > better security on the Internet on Thu Sep. 12th. Your help is > needed to call Congress. See http://www.crypto.com/ for more > details. > > ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT ALERT > >________________________________________________________________________ >BACKGROUND / WHAT TO EXPECT THIS WEEK > >For the past 3 years, Cyber-Rights Activists, citizens, and industry >leaders have been working hard to reform US encryption policy. > >Support has been building behind several legislative proposals this >year because they send a clear signal to the Administration about the >need for security and privacy in the Information Age. The digital >revolution is currently being held hostage by the White House's Cold >War restrictions on privacy-enhancing encryption technology. > >Now, with Congress less than a month away from adjournment, everyone >who supports encryption and privacy is working to see this bill leave >committee in order to send a clear message to the White House that they >are on the wrong side of the encryption issue. Although this bill may >not become law this year, its passage out of committee will be a >landmark event that will clearly tell the White House that the >Congress, the public, and the computer industry care about security and >privacy, and need strong, reliable encryption technology in order to >make the Internet a viable platform for commerce, education, and >democracy. > >Success for our side is not certain, and the next week is not without risks. >On September 12th, the Senate Commerce committee will hold a "markup", >where the bill is examined, voted on, and if there are enough votes, >passed out of committee. Two things could happen: > > -the committee could pass the bill as written, > -the committee could pass the bill with amendments. > >Any amendments are not likely to be friendly, and in particular, quiet >sources have told privacy activists that the Clinton Administration has been >readying a legislative assault on your right to use encryption for several >weeks now. A Clipper-like amendment could be attached to the bill if >our side does not have enough votes to block all amendments. > >It is crucial that all netizens who consider privacy and security important >take a moment to call members of the Commerce Committee right now and >urge them to vote S.1726 out of committee without amendments. > >________________________________________________________________________ >DESCRIPTION OF S.1726, PRO-CODE BILL > >Privacy-enhancing encryption technology is currently under heavy restrictions >kept in place by the White House. Encryption that is currently allowed to >be exported is not sufficient to protect confidential information. This >policy acquires an "Alice-in-Wonderland" quality when one realizes that >strong encryption products are available abroad both for sale and for free >download off the Internet. > >The Pro-CODE Act resolves to: > >1. Allow for the *unrestricted* export of "mass-market" or "public-domain" > encryption programs, including such products as Pretty Good Privacy and > popular World Wide Web browsers. > >2. Requires the Secretary of Commerce to allow the less restricted export > of other encryption technologies if products of similar strength are > generally available outside the United States, roughly up to DES > strength. > >3. Prohibits the federal government from imposing mandatory key-escrow > encryption policies on the domestic market and limiting the authority > of the Secretary of Commerce to set standards for encryption products. > >________________________________________________________________________ >CHRONOLOGY OF PRO-CRYPTO LEGISLATION > >9/12/96 (scheduled) >Senate Commerce committee will hold markup of S.1726 and hopefully pass it >out of committee with no amendments. > >7/25/96: Full Senate Commerce committee holds positive hearings on S.1726. >FBI Director Louis Freeh testifies along with many cyber-luminaries. >Hearings are cybercast Internet Cyber-Rights activists with HotWired >and WWW.Crypto.Com. You can see the photos, read the testimony, and >listen to the audio transcript at http://www.crypto.com/events/072596/ > >6/26/96: Senate subcommittee holds positive hearings on S.1726. Hearings are >cybercast Internet Cyber-Rights activists with HotWired and WWW.Crypto.Com. >You can see the photos, read the testimony, and listen to the audio >transcript at http://www.crypto.com/events/062696/ > >5/2/96: Bi-partisan group of Senators introduce Pro-CODE Act, which would >free public-domain encryption software (such as PGP) for export, free much >commercial encryption for export, and reduce the government's ability to >push Clipper proposals down the throats of an unwilling public. Original >sponsors include: Senators Burns (R-MT), Dole (R-KS), Faircloth (R-NC), >Leahy (D-VT), Murray (D-WA), Pressler (R-SD), and Wyden (D-OR). > >3/5/96: Sen. Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Goodlatte (R-VA) announce encryption bills >(S.1587/H.R.3011) that significantly relax export restrictions on products >with encryption functionality in them, as well as free public domain software >such as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy). > >________________________________________________________________________ >FOR MORE INFORMATION / SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS > >There are many excellent resources online to get up to speed on crypto >including the following WWW sites: > >http://www.crypto.com http://www.privacy.org http://www.eff.org >http://www.cdt.org http://www.epic.org http://www.vtw.org > >Please visit them often. > >The following organizations have signed onto this alert: > > Center for Democracy and Technology > Electronic Frontier Foundation > Electronic Privacy Information Center > Voters Telecommunications Watch > >________________________________________________________________________ >End alert >======================================================================== > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Conjuring up the latest utopia for a minoritarian sect of illuminati
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:46 AM 9/11/96, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: >> I didn't call for your "expulsion." No one has been expelled in four years >> of the list's existence. > >However Tim has been complaining about my postings to various people I know >and respect. (I stopped respecting Tim years ago.) And who might these people be? I suggest you name them, as I have not even mentioned your name to anyone. You don't rate a complaint from me. --TCM 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

Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Q: Is a drawing of a child engaging in a sexual act an illegal item? Q: Is an image of Raquel Welch morphed to make her look like a 15-year-old illegal? Q: Is writing a story about a child having sex illegal? Q: Is a collage of images of little girls (or boys, one presumes) in swimsuits, with apparent salacious intent, illegal? Q: Is accessing a Web site having nude or sexually-related images of children who are of legal sexual age in the site's country--but not in the accessor's country--illegal? Q: Is it legal to have photographs of one's own children in a nude state? (E.g., playing in a backyard pool, at the beach, etc.) Does it become illegal to let others see these photographs? How about putting them on a Web site? Q: Is a crime committed if a teenaged girls takes a photograph of _herself_ and shows it to others? To adults? Or if she writes a salacious story about herself or her friends? Or if she just invents it all? Whom is exploiting whom? Which acts are crimes? I submit that the various child porn laws we have in the United States are about the clearest examples of "thoughtcrime" one can find, where the _thought_ is what is being criminalized. First, a caveat, which ought to be clear, but which is necessary to state anyway (never know what search engines will find my words and take them out of context). I have no unusual interest in little children. Surely some teen girls can be sexually attractive, even if technically underage. Nothing surprising in this, surely? But, no, I am not an advocate of "child porn," merely wondering about the many constitutional and moral issues involved in the panoply of laws and precedents involved. Anyway, we have on this list various comments about "child porn" and why it should be illegal: -- consumption of child porn "creates a market" -- it harms the children -- it's disgusting -- etc. Clearly the first argument applies to many other things. Why not outlaw pro-drug speech? Pro-drug speech "creates a market" for an illegal product. Shut down "High Times," seize copies of books by Aldous Huxley and William Burroughs, ban mocking comments about the War on Some Drugs. The second argument, that children are actually harmed, is vitiated by the fact that much so-called child porn comes from countries where the actors are of legal age. How can a 14-year-old Thai girl be "harmed" when what she is being paid to do is perfectly legal in Thailand? (It's parallel to the situation with, say, Arab countries. Porn videos in Saudi Arabia are of course illegal, with roughly the status of child porn videos in the U.S. (maybe worse, as I'm sure the punishment could be death). Are the American and European actresses in such videos being harmed?) And the case of morphings, drawings, stories, etc., clearly involve no actual children, so the argument that children are harmed is empty. (Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, amongst others, have argued that "women as a class" are injured by pornography. I won't get into the issues of this here. Suffice it to say that if speech or nonviolent acts begin to be suppressed on the basis of "class action" cases, we're in a heap of trouble.) As to me argument that the images, stories, etc., are disgusting, amoral, inappropriate, etc., well, perhaps. But what is the legal and constitutional basis for restricting such things? Many opinions and actions are vile and disgusting, but are not illegal. Under what interpretation of the Constitution is the creation of a drawing depicting, say, a 7-year-old girl having sex with someone or something a criminal act? The obscenity laws? (And as to the obscenity laws, which part of "Congress shall make no law" did the readers of the First Amendment miss? I realize this is a longstanding topic of discussion, with various famous cases (Miller, Hustler, etc.), but it remains a mystery to me.) My point is this: For anyone who claims that "thoughtcrime" is something the Evil Empire specialized in, i.e., totalitarian communist regimes, look to the enforcement of laws about what can be viewed or accessed from the United States. Thougtcrime. --Tim May -- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

3 3

Child porn as thoughtcrime
by Chuck Thompson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The answer to the all the questions in the first set is yes, in this country anyway, if they are interpreted by the legal system as intending to incite illicit sexual acts, fantasies or obsessions about children. The fantasies or obsessions are assumed to lead to the illegal acts. >Whom is exploiting whom? Well, I'd say that anyone who benefits materially from the distribution of child porn is exploiting either the children, the pervert or both. >Which acts are crimes? Most of them, in this country. A few would be open to interpretation by the courts. >I submit that the various child porn laws we have in the United States are about the >clearest examples of "thoughtcrime" one can find, where the _thought_ is what is being >criminalized. I agree that it is an excellent example for your proposition regarding thoughtcrime. I disagree that the thought is what is illegal, consequently the subject doesn't work as the basis for your argument. *Thinking* about commiting a crime is not illegal, *acting* on your thought may be. Exp: I can think/ponder about killing my enemy. Until I do something about my thoughts, I'm not guilty of a crime. If I begin to discuss the commission of a crime with you, and it could be proven that the discussion was actually a part of the planning to commit such a crime, then, at the very least, we are guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime. Intent to commit an actual crime must be proven. >-- consumption of child porn creates a market >-- it harms the children >-- it's disgusting >-- etc. >Clearly the first argument applies to many other things. Why not outlaw pro-drug speech? Hold on here.. you are making an invalid comparison. To my knowledge, there is no law against speaking in favor of child porn, any more than there is against speaking in favor of drug usage. It against the law to *use* either of them. >The second argument, that children are actually harmed, is vitiated by the fact that >much so-called child porn comes from countries where the actors are of legal age. >How can a 14-year-old Thai girl be "harmed" when what she is bing paid to do is >perfectly legal in Thailand? There you go again.. being legal does not, in any way, mitigate it's harmfulness. There may be places on this earth where it is legal to convince a two-year-old to perform some sexually gratifying act by giving her a piece of candy. Just because it is legal doesn't mean it won't scar the child. The effect on the child is what is illegal, in this case. >And the case of morphings, drawings, stories, etc., clearly involve no actual children, >so the argument that children are harmed is empty. The argument is not dependent upon whether or not actual children are used, any more than whether or not an actual gun is used in a robbery - the net effect is the same. Children are harmed by the promotion of child porn because it leads to the abuse/exploitation of kids. >As to me argument that images, stories, etc., are disgusting, amoral, inappropriate, >etc., well, perhaps. But what is the legal and constitutional basis for restricting >such things? Many opinions and actions are vile and disgusting, but are not illegal. >Under what interpretation of the Constitution is the creation of a drawing depicting, >say, a 7-year-old girl having sex with someone or something a criminal act? The >obscenity laws? First, you must separate opinions from actions. In this country, opinions are not ever illegal. Some actions are. The illegality is probably (I'm out of my depth here, not being a lawyer or student of the constitution) based on various laws which would fall under the umbrella of "obscenity". We, as a society, have the right to formulate, pass and enact legislation which we deem to be in our best interests. And, as long as the laws which are passed do not violate our constitution, the underlying basis for passing such laws, the fact that an individual may not agree with the law does not give that individual the right to violate it without consequence. In other words, an individual may be able to violate a law without consequence, if he can prove that the law is unconstitutional. >My point is this: For anyone who claims that "thoughtcrime" is something the Evil >Empire specialized in, i.e., totalitarian communist regimes, look to the enforcement of >laws about what can be viewed or accessed from the United States. Thoughtcrime. Your case is weak, because it is based on the false premise that the illegality of child pornography equates to illegality of thought. It is overt action which is illegal, not thought. Let those who believe that they have a constitutional right to "keep and bear child pornography" violate the various laws and see if they can prove that their constitutional rights are violated by the law which proscribes such things. By the way, Tim, I found your "translation" to be offensive, crude and deliberately provocative. I do, however, support your right to publish it. Generally speaking, I find your missives to be enlightening and appreciate the way they cause me to think carefully about my position on various topics. Regards, Chuck Thompson

1 0

Re: One Time Reply Blocks (was Re: strengthening remailer protocols)
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:26 PM 9/10/96 -0700, Lance Cottrell wrote: >It is a good idea, but it does involve another whole level of >infrastructure. I am not at all sure that message pools are not a better >system. Your suggestion requires The client to do a lot of work, and for >the remailers to store many keys for indefinite periods. You certainly know the details of Mixmaster remailers better than I do. In a last defense, while the protocol requires Alice's program to do a lot of work, it still could be fairly easy for Alice herself to use. In addition, the remailer could set a definite limit to the lifetime of the keys, since Alice is also setting such a limit. If Alice specifies their lifetime when she sends them, then the path would automatically dissolve without action on her part. Let me float one more hair-brained idea. I think Tim May is right in saying that the most secure response technique is the one in Blacknet. i.e. The response are posted to some public bulletin board, and then Alice reads them at her leisure. I see two problems with this approach: (1) It doesn't scale well, and (2) Alice's reading of the response may be detected. (I think of the vans in Great Britain which listen to the local oscillator frequency of TV sets to find what people are watching.) Perhaps both of these problems could be solved by something like a stock photo service which uses digital watermarks to discourage copyright infringement. Since it is using digital watermarks, each copy of a particular photo would be different, providing the opportunity to stego an encrypted message in the photo. If Alice regularly spent $.05 of Ecash for a new desktop background photo, it would be hard to determine which had stegoed messages. The service might even make money on just the above-board sales. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | "Lone Star" - My personal | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | choice for best movie of | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | 1996 | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh wrote: > Not so, says Bruce Taylor, the chief architect of the CDA and a > professional cyber-scaremonger. The former Federal porn-prosecutor > believes that "not all censorship is bad." > > "Foreign countries have an obligation to restrict obscenity and child > pornography on the Internet by the treaty of 1911," says Taylor. "It's > an agreement between the states to cooperate and to use international > laws to prosecute obscenity." And to Taylor, books and copies of > Penthouse magazine can be obscene. The status of such treaties governing internal policies is very suspect. In the first place a great many of the countries that signed the original treaty will not exist. Technically neither Germany nor France exist in that form since both have been reformed under entirely new constitutions. In addition it is always open to a soveriegn nation to abrogate a treaty. This may entail sanctions but unless the UN were involved it would be unlikely in the extreeme that any significant effect would be caused. At this stage a UN resolution would seem more relevant than a treaty from 1911 intended to entrench Victorian morality. As a European I note that the US happily gives itself the "right" to unilaterally withdraw from treaties of far more significance such as SALT-II or GATT on entirely spurious grounds. The US has also withdrawn from the World court after being found guilty of terrorist acts in Nicaragua. As such the likes of Bruce Taylor don't exactly have a strong case. If the US thinks it can pick and choose amongst its international obligations then other countries are likely to consider they have equal rights to do so. I don't think that kiddie porn is likely to be the breaking factor however. Anyone who has been following the European news will understand that recent events in Belgium makes that exceptionaly unlikely. I think it most unlikely that any President would be foolish enough to send Mr Taylor over to explain US demands. He is transparently disingenuous and conveniently ill-informed. The small town American parochialism he represents is even less popular in Europe than in California or amongst East coast intellectuals. Where I see a more likely breaking point is over cannabis which many countries are finding disproportionately expensive to control. Since the US is rapidly becomming the worlds largest supplier demands from that quarter may be treated with less than full concern. Spain and the Netherlands have both reformed their drug laws and the UK may well end up doing so in the long term, reform of the prostitution laws will probably come first however. Phill

1 0

Re: One Time Reply Blocks (was Re: strengthening remailer protocols)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:56 PM 9/11/96, Bill Frantz wrote: >Let me float one more hair-brained idea. I think Tim May is right in >saying that the most secure response technique is the one in Blacknet. >i.e. The response are posted to some public bulletin board, and then Alice >reads them at her leisure. > >I see two problems with this approach: (1) It doesn't scale well, and (2) >Alice's reading of the response may be detected. (I think of the vans in >Great Britain which listen to the local oscillator frequency of TV sets to >find what people are watching.) I agree that message pools have interesting scaling problems. If most messages are in the same large pool, and lots of people are using pools, then that pool could become very, very large. However, we are many _years_ away from this situation, and a very large number of _text_ messages (as opposed to JPEGs) can be put in a few dozen megabytes of pool space. I contend that many "scaling problems" turn out to be relatively unimportant, for various reasons. (And scaling problems should not be a reason not to deploy a simple system...odds are that other factors will enter long before the system breaks. The Xanadu people may have worried too much about hypertext database scaling problems, while the more straightforward HTML/URL hypertext scheme actually got deployed and changed the playing field completely.) There are also likely to be various kinds of pools, thus partly solving the scaling problem by hierarchies. (This could worse the traffic analysis--who is reading what--problem, though.) On the traffic analysis problem, I also think this is overrated as a risk. The likelihood that the TLAs could figure out which of the messages in "alt.anonymous.messages" I am actually interested in are small. And there are PageSat-type distribution systems, @Home-type cable distribution systems, etc. (My DSS satellite has provisions for a digital feed...it is reported to be coming soon.) Reply-blocks are a _clear_ problem, while message pools have various basic advantages. I would worry more about scaling when volume is 1000 times what it now is. (And digital postage solves a lot of scaling problems.) --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."

1 0

Re: Ban CU Secrecy, Keep TLA's!
by paul＠fatmans.demon.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Mr David Bickford, the first British intelligence lawyer > to speak publicly in the UK, said at a conference in > Cambridge, 50 miles north-east of London, that there > "appears to be no justification at all for offshore bank > secrecy other than to protect the criminal". Apart from tehe confidentiality of the customer, bank, all those they trade with and all other interested parties, well then, they can`t be that important can they > > He said "offshore bank secrecy can and must be abolished" > and "the UK should be the first to abolish this secrecy > given their control of their dependent territory offshore > centres". So because we choose to maintain a statist and totalitarian empire we had better set an example of how to do it to the rest of the world??? > > Mr Bickford, who now runs an international legal > consultancy, said "endemic corruption" is caused by > offshore secrecy, and it is "difficult to see why it is > tolerated by any other than those with an unlawful > disposition". It is also diffult to see why I don`t go round to mr. Bickfords house and kill him, his dog, and his pet hamster, but I don`t, nor do I intend to, to say that we cannot see a reason for people wanting privacy is no justification for legislation that prohibits such privacy. <for any spook agencies etc. reading the above, it is NOT a death threat, it is a sarcastic comment> > He said allowing countries to maintain offshore banking > secrecy is "a classic example of the corruptive influence > of organised crime". It is a classic example of privacy and freedom in a free society (not that I believe Britain falls into this category) Has anyone got this guys IQ, it`s probably the first ever negative IQ in the history of the world, cheer everyone, its a historic find. Mr. Bickford, I believe you to be a fuckwit, feel free to prove me wrong.. Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk Http://www.fatmans.demon.co.uk/crypt/ "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey" -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQCNAjH9j+cAAAEEAMBvREiQR0ot9dFCO0TiSCSunAYLv2g1Bc6I3bz8FzKXNH53 6mieJf/W4rD+CxJpT0q9RQaaoRtkHJLwbjfK2il3D7mEahMAyqvF/xRJNqkXfhM3 sRJM0Jh43l+W0M5vwokbEbk25/bxWWGspTsLD3YHbzKnG6pOcL5OPIRbv66xAAUR tCdQYXVsIEJyYWRsZXkgPHBhdWxAZmF0bWFucy5kZW1vbi5jby51az4= =riHc -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0