December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Anyone have the complete info on CP list alternatives?
by Bryan Reece 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Delivered-To: reece-cpunks-raw(a)nceye.net Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 19:07:25 -0600 (CST) Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, wcampbel(a)peganet.com Reply-To: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov) From: ichudov(a)algebra.com (Igor Chudov @ home) X-No-Archive: yes Organization: Bool Sheet Software X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24 ME7] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk Mark M. wrote: > - Newsgroups alt.cypherpunks, alt.cypherpunks.announce, > alt.cypherpunks.social, alt.cypherpunks.technical have been created. ... Along with several others. > - The distributed list is still forming and so far consists of > cypherpunks(a)algebra.com, cypherpunks(a)ssz.com, and others of which I > do not know the location. A mail<->news gateway is planned, but not > yet in place, between the distributed list and the newsgroup(s). It is in place. It feeds from cypherpunks(a)algebra.com. Bryan Reece reece(a)taz.nceye.net runs the posting bot. taz.nceye.net is an open newsserver offering several cypherpunks newsgroups. I am not yet sure if taz is now a part of the mainstream usenet, that is, it may not be connected to the Big USENET. It receives some Big Usenet groups, but only for local users. alt.cypherpunks is open, but there will be long delays, on the order of a day, for articles there (unless someone better connected to Usenet wants to feed me alt.cypherpunks.*---any volunteers?).

1 0

Re: The Science Generations, II
by Peter J. Capelli 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

< snow writes > > This is where I often get a little confused. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the > constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes > _I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was > allowed to do. > > In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it > restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government > can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > > ??? ( non-US residents, tune out ... ) This is the way it ( the constitution ) was written to work; however, the feds have found an interesting way around this. Here, in two easy steps, is their secret backdoor through the constitution: Step 1: Take our money in federal taxes. Step 2: Refuse to give it back to us unless we follow their guidelines. It's been done time and time again, "for our own good". Witness the country-wide drinking age of 21 ( if states don't enact it, they lose their highway funds ), or the upcoming welfare "return" to the states. So, while the Federal government doesn't enact the legislation, they have a big enough stick to force states and local govt. to bend to their "suggestion". Sorry. -pete -- Pete Capelli, CNE UB Networks, Inc. pcapelli(a)ub.com ****** Finger pete(a)idaho.ubisg.com for my PGP Public key! ****** They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin, 1759

1 0

When and where?
by Alec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Friends: Please post the date when this list will shift to Usenet if that is indeed to happen. I have not been able to sort out the facts (?) from the speculation, argument, and gas. I have requested my ISP to add alt.cypherpunks to the mail server asap. I don't want to miss a second of the resurrected (or is that born again?) c'punks. Thanks. Alec -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMwextiKJGkNBIH7lAQEF2gP+LiPlzbHaFKg6lpJZoKSf2RLiMfQAlOkf 7tDQB9M+gtyJLM/xN0GjmkbNQk6blVFyAHuCY4GW7MzoReHoca08FfZ7+tRyFniK AoBwbnqPv8ZQN9MbfaEzt1gjKGMDXHaUM8CCOk0Pt3aPxnd+SsuNVUfZCF7Hg7QS mE47juLt06M= =aqD9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Constitution and a Right to Privacy
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: >Mr. May wrote: >> Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the >> Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing >> number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals >> of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, >> True Names revealed, etc.? > > This is where I often get a little confused. > > Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that the >constitutuion was _not_ a document that explicitly spelled out what writes >_I_ had, but rather spelled out fairly precisely what the _government_ was >allowed to do. > > In otherwords, the Constitution does not restrict _me_ rather it >restricts the _feds_ (and the Feds alone). > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > > ??? But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the First. Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this. Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style). The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from the Constitution. (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally protected by a woman's right to privacy?) --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: The Science Generations, II
by Timothy C. May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:58 PM -0800 2/16/97, Steve Schear wrote: >BTW, regarding the difficulty in obtaining chemical reagents (unless you're >in a qualified educational program or professionally employed at a large >industrial company), I came across a relatively new company targeting the >amateur scientist, Chemical Resale of Santa Barbara ><http://www.sb.net/wirehead>. It carries only a limited selection and >prices seem very high (undoubtedly due to his small volume). And as part of the "War on (Some) Drugs," many chemical purchases now require licenses of various sorts. As a growing number of chemicals are classified as "precursors" to a growing medicine cabinet full of mind-altering or reality-enhancing recreational substances, this "chemical escrow" is a step in the direction of outlawing all cash commerce. Some legal scholars are claiming that there is no provision in the Constitution guaranteeing anonymity of purchases, and, indeed, a growing number of purchases can no longer be anonymous--guns, explosives, chemicals of various sorts, etc. How long before _all_ transactions must be recorded, True Names revealed, etc.? (I believe this interpretation is incorrect. I believe "due process" means that a court order, or specific enabling legislation (as for guns) must be produced. If Alice sells something to Bob, having the government as a third party is, I think, a violation of the Fourth. However, the "power to regulate commerce" could be the root password, as national security often is.) I'm thinking about these issues because I'm working on a position paper for Michael Froomkin's session at CFP. (Froomkin is one of the legal scholars aruing that transactions may have no constitutional expectation of privacy.) >Regarding amateur experiments with 'real' rockets, the Fed have passed a >plethora of laws effectively resticting what non-governmental bodies may >investigate. See 14 CFR PART 101, 22 CFR Sec. 121.16 and 49 CFR Sec. >173.88. I guess I can't play with matches anymore. Thank you Congress. Nor can you play with knives, by the way. I read rec.knives, and the explosion of laws about how and where knives may be carried, used, owned, bought, etc., and what blade shapes are allowed, what lengths are felonies to possess, etc., is truly mind-numbing. I concluded that I'm committing misdemeanors in nearly all counties I enter in California, and felonies in some. All for possessing and/or carrying what I bought legally just a few years ago. This is the morass of laws into which we have sunk. I suspect similar laws--regulating commerce, protecting children, disarming bad guys, etc.--will be used soon enough on crypto. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" 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: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

7 12

Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> >Greg Broiles wrote: >> At 11:56 PM 2/19/97 -0800, Dale Thorn wrote: >> >It's good if you don't read the L.A. Times. One of their lead editor- >> >ializers (whores), a professor at USC law school named Erwin Chemerinsky, >> >writes in relation to this subject "The federal government is an inde- >> >pendent sovereign that cannot have its powers diminished by a state >> >government's actions." (exact quote, 2/7/97). Either that's a load of >> >BS doubletalk, or it's one of the more fascistic commentaries from the >> >Times, which is usually bad enough. >> Hey, don't forget to shoot the messenger. Chemerinsky's statement is a >> concise summary of at least the last 70 years of double jeopardy >> jurisprudence. The only thing that's unusual about the use of the "dual >> sovereign" doctrine against the cops who beat King was that it's usually >> used against ordinary citizens, not cops. Do you suppose it's possible >I understood clearly the (supposed) intent of the feds in retrying >the Whites in the South who were beating up on Blacks and getting >off with White juries - I just believe they would have served the >people better by declaring mistrials or something instead of using >the "dual sovereignty" BS, since a study of the Constitution and >its preparatory papers shows the fathers clearly would have balked >at this. I had understood the basic reasons for the double jeopardy limit to be two: A. to prevent government from tormenting innocent individuals with repeated trials; and B. to prevent convictions of innocents by simple repeated trials until a jury made a mistake. The latter can be analogized in statistics to the consideration that a test with a p value of .05 will turn out false positive results 1 time in 20 by the nature of it; thus, if you look at two different studies/trials with an independent (an oversimplifying assumption for trials, admittedly) 5% chance of an incorrect conviction, the chance is 1-((19/20)(19/20)) or 9.75% for _either_ of them turning out a false positive instead of a 5% chance. In a system partially based on the principle that it's better to let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent, this result is not acceptable. While the founding fathers probably didn't realize the mathematics behind the second, I suspect that they had some intuition of its nature. I can see an argument, however, for using it in the case of state employees, particularly police - the state judicial/prosecutorial system can hardly be said not to be biased in favor of them. A better solution, however, would be to simply do the trial in a federal court to begin with. (Having trials of federal employees in the courts of the state of their alleged victims would be a correspondingly good idea, although multiple possible states for this could be a problem.) I'd appreciate comments from persons with more legal knowledge than I have; I am simply going by logic here. -Allen

1 0

RRE: crime and technology
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 20-FEB-1997 07:55:48.58 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 18:51:34 -0500 From: Belinda Juran <juran(a)law.harvard.edu> [...] Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Symposium: Crime & Technology Law Enforcement Technology - Cybercrime - Electronic Commerce Saturday, March 15, 1997 Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall at Harvard Law School in Cambridge, MA. Registration: 9:30 A.M. Tentative Schedule, including Confirmed and Tentative Panelists: 9:30-9:45 Registration & coffee 9:45-10 Introduction 10-12 Panel: "Search, Seizure, and Surveillance Technology" (searching of technology & the technology of searching) Moderator: Stephen Heymann assistant United States attorney in Boston who teaches at HLS and was involved with the first wiretap laid on the Internet. Panelists: o Tony West AUSA in San Jose who helped investigate the creator of PGP and is now prosecuting the "Orchid Club" cases against an international child pornography ring that distributed through the Internet. o Chris Slobogin UFlorida professor who is the reporter for the ABA Task Force on Technology and Law Enforcement o Andy Good a Boston defense attorney who has defended computer searches including US v. Steve Jackson Games o Marc Goodman a Los Angeles Police Department sargeant who has investigated computer crimes and has pursued the impact of technology on police departments during his year at the Kennedy School of Government o Elizabeth Marsh a Quinnipiac Law School professor who has done work on encryption and the danger of the federal government's "key" proposal 12 Lunch: box lunch provided 12:45-1:15 Keynote: invited (tentative) keynote speaker: Bob Kahn Corporation for National Research Initiatives 1:15-3:15 Panel: "The Risks of Electronic Banking &Commerce" (content security & payment/banking security) Moderator: Charles Nesson professor at Harvard Law School specializing in legal implications of digital technologies o Marc Rotenberg EPIC (Electronic Privacy & Information Center) o Kelly Frey Copyright Clearance Center o David Byer partner, Testa Hurwitz & Thibeault, Boston, MA o Philip Bane counsel, First Virtual 3:15 end Admission to the Symposium is free to all Harvard affiliates (with valid Harvard ID), $15 for all other students, $30 for public sector professionals, and $100 for private sector professionals. ADVANCE REGISTRATION IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED. - ------------------------Registration Form------------------------------- Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Symposium on Crime & Technology; March 15, 1997; registration begins at 9:30 a.m.; program begins at 10:00 a.m. Ames Courtroom, Austin Hall, Harvard Law School, Cambridge MA Name:____________________________________________________ Affiliation _________________________________________________ Address __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Telephone:________________________________________________ Email:____________________________________________________ Check One: _____ Private Sector Professional: $100 _____ Public Sector Professional: $ 30 _____ Student: $ 15 _____ Harvard student (valid ID must be presented at the door): free Make checks payable to: Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Mail the completed registration form with check to: Symposium Registration Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 - ------------------------------Cut Here-------------------------------------- The Symposium is sponsored by Hale and Dorr L.L.P., Boston, MA. The Spring Issue of the Journal will include articles covering the broad topic of "Crime and Technology." For additional information about the Symposium, contact Symposium Editor Belinda Juran, by e-mail at juran(a)law.harvard.edu, or by phone at the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology offices at 617-495-3606 or 617-493-7949. ABOUT THE JOURNAL: The Harvard Journal of Law & Technology is a leading scholarly publication for articles addressing the many diverse interstices of science and technology with law and society. We have published articles by law professors, practitioners, business leaders, and politicians on varied topics including biotechnology, computers, international trade, technology transfer, intellectual property, medical technologies, and telecommunications. These and other subjects are some of the most exciting and rapidly developing areas of the law, and we believe that the dialogue provided by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology will help to shape the future of this important field. We welcome submissions of articles, case comments, or book reviews addressing the relationship of law and technology. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION: For additional information, please contact the Journal at the address below. The Journal publishes three issues each year. To subscribe to the Journal's upcoming issues in Volume 10, please send the Journal a check for U.S. $45.00 (foreign orders $50.00) to the address below. To obtain the issue discussed above or back issues, please send the Journal a check for $35.00 with a note indicating the desired issue (i.e., "Vol. 9 No. 2"). ************************************************************************* Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Publications Center Harvard Law School Cambridge, MA 02138 Telephone: (617) 495-3606 Fax: (617) 495-8828 E-Mail: jolt(a)law.harvard.edu WWW: http://www.law.harvard.edu/home/jolt/ *************************************************************************

1 0

The List
by Steve 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey all, As a somewhat quiet observer and student of the Cypherpunk list over the last two years, I have been able to keep in touch with an unimaginable amount of issues, info, concerns, and news; and the knowledge I have gained from this list is more than I can say in words. I have sifted through the noise and can say the info gleaned was indeed worth the effort. I am sorry to see the list in its present state, ready to move on to better? things. I hope I speak for many of you, like me who listened learned asked and was answered, that the Cypherpunk list must continue and that each of us, active and passive member has a responsibility to ourselves and each other to continue bring the issues to light , fighting the good fight against the gov't's lousy regulations, and bringing encryption to the masses. I have been working with a security software development company for 2 and half years and have been working on this goal: bringing encryption to the masses. The information both directly (actual posts relating to Crypto) and indirectly (Rants and flames on Snakeoil products) gained has helped guide me and my colleagues closer and closer to our goal. For that and more I thank all of you. We are very close to releasing a beta version of our product to the Internet community to use and abuse. We have worked closely with Bruce Schnieir and Counterpane to insure good implementation of our security measures. I hope our product meets with your standards and approval but more importantly I hope that you (the collective you) can be instrumental in helping us to accomplish our goal. I will post to this list (assuming it is still amongst the living) very shortly a more detailed description of the product and where a beta can be gotten. I am sorry for "whetting the appetites" but I figured since I was E-mailing a post relating to the state of list, I include a bit about how the list has positively effected me and has contributed to society. Steveo (privsoft(a)ix.netcom.com) --Privacy Software Division-- Syntel Technologies, Inc.

1 0

[ADMINISTRATIVIUM] RSA
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy `C' May was born when his mother was on the toilet. /\ o-/\ Timothy `C' May ///\|/\\\ / /|\ \

1 0

Re: RSA
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A warning label ought to be tattooed on Tim C[retin] May's head, saying `Warning: shit content under pressure'. /\_/\ ( x x ) -oo0-(o o)-0oo- Tim C[retin] May

1 0