December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Reflections on the Bernstein ruling
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:57 PM 12/20/96 -0800, Greg Broiles wrote: > >(Please keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer yet, and that my comments are >intended only as the reflections of an amateur and are intended as >discussion fodder, not legal advice.) > >Folks seem to be very excited about Judge Patel's ruling in the Bernstein >case - and with good reason. It was, for example, a first-page >above-the-fold item in both of the Bay Area's legal newspapers today. >Unfortunately, most of the media reports have done a poor job of >interpreting the ruling, and it's easy to draw bad conclusions from erratic >news reports about the case. The decision is available online ><http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/Legal/961206.decision> >thanks to the folks at EFF. I thought list members might appreciate a >summary of the decision and its potential effects. Please comment on my (layman's) proposal that no "mens rea" ("guilty mind") can be attributed to a person who is relying on a not-yet-overturned judicial decision. In other words, if a person has a genuine belief that what he's doing has been upheld by the Patel ruling, he cannot be claimed to have had "mens rea." (I am presuming, here, that before he does anything, he "clears it" with a lawyer who assures him that what he's planning is at least covered in the Patel decision as being okay. I understand, of course, that "mens rea" may be irrelevant in CIVIL REGULATORY issues, but not in CRIMINAL ones.) >1. What the ruling said >In brief, Judge Patel ruled that Category XIII(b) (the category which >refers to cryptographic equipment/software) is unconstitutional because it >functions as a prior restraint upon speech without providing important >procedural safeguards which are required when a prior restraint scheme is >put into place. She ruled that the "technical data" provision of the ITAR >is also unconstitutional when it refers to technical data about Category >XIII(b) items because of the lack of procedural safeguards. > >Mopping up other points raised by the suit, Judge Patel ruled that the term >"defense article" as defined in 22 CFR 120.6 should be read to elide the >phrase "or technical data"; and that when interpreted that way, the terms >"defense article", "defense service", and "technical data" are not >unconstitutionally vague. She also ruled that the term "export" is not >unconstitutionally vague, and writes (in 'dicta', which is legalese for >"offhand comment", e.g., without precedential value but interesting as a >hint re what's going on in the judge's mind) that placing software on an >"Internet site" which can be accessed from a foreign country is an export >for ITAR purposes. What about leaving a floppy on a sidewalk in Des Moines, Iowa, which might be picked up by a wandering foreign tourist who happened nearby? Sheesh, these judges are real idiots, even when they accidently are coming to (mostly) the right conclusion. However, if being "on the Internet" is automatically presumed to be an export, why can't we program using remote-control editors which might, someday, be available on the Internet? (maybe they already are; somewhat analogous to the old timesharing computers of yore. If the underlying files were kept overseas, modified by specific editing commands sent to a remote system, presumably Patel's dicta would suggest that those files were never "exported" per se. They were formed and kept overseas, INTENTIONALLY, to avoid the later necessity of exporting them had they been kept in the US.) This would be an modifed and automated version of the way versions of PGP later than 1.0 were supposed to have been developed: Actual coding was done overseas, based on suggestions and comments from other countries. (including, presumably, the US.) Yes, realize that pessimism overtakes me here. "The system" never wants to admit a contradiction. I would argue, however, that whereever the system wishes to draw the line and call everything outside the line "an export," that decision should be considered binding on the government even when such a conclusion leads to unexpected and undesireable consequences. (for the government, at least...) >She also ruled that the "fundamental research in science and engineering" >(120.11(8)) and "general scientific, mathematical, or engineering >principles" (120.10(5)) exceptions to the definition of "technical data" >are void because they are too vague. As far as I can tell, they are thus no >longer available to potential ITAR defendants. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they are no longer considered precisely defined exceptions, NOT that the exceptions no longer exist? It seems to me that if the "burden of non-ambiguity" falls on those writing the regulations, failure to eliminate ambiguity would have to be resolved in favor of tolerating actions that fall into the grey area. For example, if a law was passed that said, "pornographic writing is illegal," and the SC later determined that "pornographic" was ambiguously defined, what they WOULDN'T do is to make ALL writing illegal! (which would, obviously, be an over-broad restriction, in an of itself.) Otherwise, what would on the surface appear to be a overturning of a law would actually be a _broadening_ of it. >It's also unclear that Judge Patel's ruling is enough to make export of >crypto source legal by people/organizations located even in the Northern >District of CA. Venue is proper, in an ITAR case, in any jurisdiction which >the defense articles have moved through. (18 USC 3237(a); _US v. Durrani_ >659 F.Supp 1177, 1182 (D. Conn, 1987); an easy analogy is to the _US v. >Thomas_ "Amateur Action" case, where Tennessee venue was proper for >prosecution of California defendants who sent porn into Tennessee.) So it's >at least arguable that the feds could simply bring an ITAR prosecution in >another district, if exported crypto flowed through that district. But again, deal with the mens rea issue. If Patel said, "It's okay to export this software because the regulation is invalid," and you do so relying on this ruling, wouldn't any subsequent (criminal) prosecution both have to prove you did it, and ALSO prove that you were being unreasonable in relying on the ruling? (Are rulings of illegality somehow more "reasonable" than rulings of legality?) I'm not suggesting that her decision can't be overturned in the future; I'm suggesting that until it is overturned, each member the public is entitled to act in reliance on it, perhaps at least the ones in her jurisdiction. >So while the ruling has considerable historical, cultural, and symbolic >significance, it's dangerous to assume that it means that export >restrictions on crypto are dead. However, wouldn't it be a good idea to take advantage of what is at least a temporary decision? If I were a large corporation, having just developed an excellent design for a crypto telephone, I might want to export it NOW, which is in effect taking advantage of a temporary loosening of restrictions. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Error Condition Re: Invalid request
by listproc＠plaidworks.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=============== Mail Daemon Command Error =============== The line that caused the error was: >UNSUBSCRIBE SHARKS CYPHERPUNKS(a)TOAD.COM: You are not subscribed to sharks(a)plaidworks.com ==================== For more help, send e-mail to <info(a)plaidworks.com> or browse <http://www.plaidworks.com/ListAdmin/> to use our new World Wide Web interface. ==================== Any list commands after the point of error are ignored. If you put a 'signature' on your email, that will cause an error. This can be ignored if you received confirmation of your other commands. ========== Mail Daemon Command Summary ========== The syntax for the most common commands is: (if you aren't sure, get help from the above help sources) SUBSCRIBE listname your name goes here UNSUBSCRIBE listname To turn on DIGEST mode, use: SET listname MAIL DIGEST To turn off DIGEST mode, use: SET listname MAIL ACK ========== If you need more help ========== If you can't make it work, send e-mail to <postmaster(a)plaidworks.com> and we'll help you out.

1 0

[Fwd: Returned mail: User unknown]
by Carl Johnson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 1

freedom is only relative
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- on 12/26/96 at 04:34 AM, Carl Johnson <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> said: ::Attila T. Hun wrote: ::> is MALLAMACE an abbreviated anagram for 'malicious mace?' :: Yes. Other abbreviated anagrams are: ::A :: C :: and :: F :: (I am thankful that I live in America, where I am free to use ::the above abbreviated anagrams without fear of censorship.) as to lack of fear of censorship; ask the woman in Chicago, approached by Clinton to shake her hand --she refused and said he was criminal murderer. Took 'em a week or so to get her and husband even out of jail the first time, and I think the charges are still going around in federal court. through all this: Bubba a) got obscene, and b) threw a tempter tantrum. think Hillary will protect your civil rights in her Global Village? Keep in mind, it's on record, Hillary's Bill of Rights is the same as the UN Bill of Rights, which just happens to be the same as the Bill of Rights in the current Chinese constitution: the UN's "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights" (ICCR): Aricle 18 states that "everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" but specifies that "freedom to manifest one's religions or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and necessary..." sounds more like Bubba's attitude as expressed by Janet Reno and Jamie Gorlick. maybe the Chinese took their model from the UN? As Communist China prepares to digest Hong Kong in July, it is moving quickly to suppress dissenting voices in the media. Asian correspondent David Aikman reports that Red China's Foreign Minister, Qian Qichen, has forbidden future commemorations in Hong Kong of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. When Hong Kong residents protested this decree, foreign ministry spokesman Shen Guofang sought to placate them with the following assurance: "Hong Kong people will have full freedom of expression, but all freedoms must be within the limits allowed by law." George Orwell was not late, just not recognized. == Tyranny Insurance by Colt Manufacturing Co. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Encrypted with 2.6.3i. Requires 2.6 or later. iQCVAwUBMsKpuL04kQrCC2kFAQGAbQP9FJmqIzipPGJ+fN/MuwQLqN6ZJODOkuP/ BDC8HjZ03BwOC91f1tR5TXGEstjwpGL9dxn+SrfpNDFrQNgnJNIbKSDNQasZtUCl 8OpkmFqrH/ALOrERxcTuc9VNLlCEL+IsKjK/pRsXWAIi7VV3uIrXTzorcQX/3d8I M9WNk0rBbvA= =WT+U -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Distributed data havens?
by some days weren't there at all 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is anything new on the distributed data haven front? Many apologies if I'm retreading scorched earth, but I've been out of touch with the world for the past, oh, twelve weeks. In particular, it would be interesting to know if * there are any lists currently extant relating to datahavens (I've changed e-mail addresses and can't recall the subscription address for dh-l) * anyone has created working or in-progress code to play with. Doesn't have to be "distributed", supported, or documented particularly well. * there are archives of relevant papers or talks avaliable. I've found a few archives for cryptography and stego, but nothing specific just yet (unless you count the discussions of anon remailers). Anyone still interested? --------------------- "Deities do not fall ten floors to the basement" - Willis/PKD pandemic(a)hotmail.com please contact for PGP public key. http://www.skylink.net/~bigdaddy

2 1

Re: Remember Canseco.....
by YukYukYo69＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-26 02:38:52 EST, you write: << >Raffik: > >Obviously you don't remember the days of the immaturity of Canseco. The only >reason why they traded him was becuase he was the only cancer to a clubhouse >that was overachieving and headed for the playoffs, not to mention they could >get a sutible replacment for him in the field as well as a couple more arms >for the stretch run. This is, of course, laughable. Canseco was dealt for 1.2 years of Witt, .2 years of Russell, and .2 years of Sierra. Sierra's collapse was completely predictable, and if you care to call me on that, check your local news archive. >> .2 years is called a stretch run! That's what the whole deal was done for. Yeah, maybe the trade wasn't the best ever, considering only a World Series title was going to be the mark on whether or not it was a good deal, but the bottom line is that he made the chance on the trade. Alderson regrets making the deal? Maybe so, but I was glad to see him take that chance on a team that for sure wasn't going to beat the Jays with Canseco. I'll admit, resigning Sierra was wrong. The only reason it happened is becuase it did come on the eve of the Bonds signing and Alderson felt the heat to be competitive in the Bay Area. And it doesn't sound like anything's gonna bring you back. I'm not here saying Canseco's presence is going to be an asset to the team. And I'm still trying to figure out, are you pro or anti Canseco? Gary YukYukYo69(a)aol.com

1 0

Re: Remember Canseco.....
by Lilian Bartholo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I only remember the days when Jose gave the A's 730 rbis in 7.5 years. Excitement and charisma at the plate and a slew of good deeds that the press never talked about. The only "cancer" in the clubhouse that I'm glad is now gone was TLR and his chosen few clan. If TLR thought Jose was so bad, then why did he call him during the offseason last year and asked him if he would play first base for him in St. Louis? Maybe he just wanted to have him around so he could use him as a distraction and as a scape-goat when things turned sour with the team. Lil

1 0

RE: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Mike Topalovich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>True. But when I was a wetback bank teller making $6.50 an hour, I didn't >fill out any forms I didn't have to. Come to think of it, you have to fill >out a CTR when you purchase a bank check or money order for only $3,000 or >more in cash. I forgot about that. > >Just a side note to show how effective these CTRs have to be...when I worked >at a bank many moons ago, we would receive calls from the IRS pertaining to >CTRs that we had filled out 8 or 9 months before...I would find that very >encouraging if I were laundering money on a temporary basis. You get the >money moved, skip town, and you still have a good 6 month head start before >the IRS even has a notion to catch on. > >Mike > >---------- >From: dlv@bwalk.dm.com[SMTP:dlv@bwalk.dm.com] >Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 1996 12:41 PM >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: RE: Legality of requiring credit cards? > >Mike Topalovich <TOPALOVICH(a)terraglyph.com> writes: >> It's not necessarily because you are paying with $100 bills. The IRS >> requires banks and other businesses to report all cash transactions >> exceeding $10,000 by means of a Currency Transaction Report (CTR). This >> is a way for the IRS to track money laundering. There happens to be two >> lines on the form asking for the number of $50 and $100 bills, but those >> lines are optional. > >They're supposed to report "suspicious" cash transactions under 10K too. > >--- > >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps > >

1 0

RE: Legality of requiring credit cards?
by Mike Topalovich 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >This isn't to start any arguments, it's just an FYI...I noticed that when I >worked for a bank, many banks would only allow other banks to call to verify >funds. What this meant was, I'd have customers calling me who in turn had >customers who were growing *very* impatient because they had written a >personal check, who had to wait for the clerk to call to verify funds, spend >10 minutes on hold for bookkeeping only to find that the bank they were >calling only allows other banks to verify funds, who then had to wait for the >clerk to call the company's bank to call the other bank to sit on hold >another 10 minutes for bookkeeping only to have the bookkeeper try to weasel >his/her way out of doing any work by disputing the fact that you worked for a >bank, blah, blah, blah. > >What's the point? Maybe some of us don't want to have to go into debt just >to buy groceries, and don't want to carry buttloads of cash on us all of the >time. With banks charging ridiculous fees to keep *your* money in a checking >account, where's the big incentive? > >I say we go back to a barter system > >Mike > > >---------- >From: gimonca@skypoint.com[SMTP:gimonca@skypoint.com] >Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 1996 12:57 AM >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Re: Legality of requiring credit cards? (fwd) > >People on the list could probably come up with much better ways to >authenticate a reputation. Until then, for personal checks, you can >call any bank in the U.S., ask for bookkeeping, and ask them if there >are funds in the bank to cover the check you're holding. Any bank >should give you a yes or no on this. Some banks, like the First Banks >here in Minnesota, will do this through their automated telephone >banking services, 24 hours. > > >

1 0

Re: Diffie-Hellman
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The only `culture' Timmy May possesses is that cultivated from his foreskin scrapings. )))) )) OO Timmy May 6 (_) `____c

1 0