December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Market Failures, Monocultures, and Dead Kids (Oh My!)
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Toto There are philosophies and spiritualities which proffer the view of "man as a machine," in which our actions can be seen as much more "mechanical" than most of us would care to admit. Of course, the obvious fallacy of this view is shown by the fact that, were it true, our attitudes and actions would be controlled by advertising and ten-second sound-bytes yanking at our emotions, rather than by the reason and logic that so clearly dominates our society, as can be demonstrated with one's index finger and a TV remote-control unit. ................................ Technology is a display of the heights of human creativity and inventiveness. The end-users are often a display of the depths, and a presentation of the fact that even though endowed with intelligence and inalienable rights, an individual must participate in the process of their own existence, investing personal effort into determining its quality or else suffering the consequences of mental stagnation and & psychological degeneracy. .. Blanc

2 1

Cocksucker John Gilmore attempts to rewrite history again
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been reading a thread in the Usenet newsgroups alt.cypherpunks and comp.org.eff.talk. EFF, you may recall, is Cocksucker John Gilmore's setup, and a pair of Gilmore/EFF's stooges - llurch(a)quixote.stanford.edu (Rich Graves <rcgraves(a)disposable.com>) and sethf(a)athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) - have been posting lies in an effort to rewrite the recent events which have totally destroyed Cocksucker's reputation on the net. Rich Graves wrote in article <5gl63i$4eu(a)quixote.stanford.edu>: >comparing me to Vulis doesn't work, I don't think. He'd have >mailbombed the list subscribers at the drop of a hat; and in >the case of cypherpunks, he and GruBoursy did, to such an >extent that the list had to move from toad.com to cyberpass.net. >I'm sure I've disappointed some people by doing nothing of the >kind. Doesn't stop Seth from saying I'm obsessed, of course. This is a lie. I haven't mailbombed cypherpunks. The list moved from toad.com to multiple sites because the readers no longer trusted Gilmore to host the list. In article <5gkfag$36o(a)quixote.stanford.edu> he also wrote: >>In any case, I personally would not ever absolutely reject posts >>arbitrarily from someone if I was moderating a list, even if 99.9% of >>their posts were absolute junk. (I've been in such situations---try >>moderating an biological evolution newsgroup and fend of all the >>creationists.) > >You've never met Dr. Vulis, then. Imagine 50 messages a day like this: > >http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks/dir.archive-96.10.24-96.10.30/ > >|Timmy May has tons of dandruff (and dried up semen) in his beard. >|Is he Jewish??? >| >|--- >| >|Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >|Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps Rich is lying... >Vulis also posted megabytes of Serdar Argic screeds, just to be annoying, >and with the stated intention of disrupting the list. That's called a >denial of service attack. More lies. I haven't posted megabytes of Serdar Argic materials, and I have repeatedly stated that it is NOT my intention to disrupt the mailing list. >While the cypherpunks move from toad.com to cyberpass.net was far from >ideal, it worked reasonably well because the list was aware of what was >happening. Is that why John Gilmore is sending his minions to post lies and to confuse the readers about what was happening? In response, sethf(a)athena.mit.edu (Seth Finkelstein) further wrote in article <5gmnuj$1ha(a)senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>: >>>In any case, I personally would not ever absolutely reject posts >>>arbitrarily from someone if I was moderating a list, even if 99.9% of >>>their posts were absolute junk. (I've been in such situations---try > > Yes, Ram, I know you'd likely handle such a situation differently. >But as I keep saying, on a human level, I just can't work up any >criticism for Declan for not wanting to deal in any way shape or >form with a person who so frequently mudslings and smears him so much. Again, this is not true. I disagree with many of the things Declan says, but I'm not smearing him and not slinging mud at him. I'm also not aware of having being banned from any forum Declan moderates, whatever that is. Seth further has the audacity to praise John Gilmore for showing the "patience of a saint": > It wasn't up to Vulis level, absolutely. But I think taking >the junk from Vulis showed the patience of a saint. This is actually very funny.

2 1

WebWorld 5-6
by Bubba Rom Dos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Cell Phone Code Cracked
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For details of the crack see the cryptographers' press release at: http://www.counterpane.com/cmea.html The New York Times, March 20, 1997, pp. A1, D2. Code Set Up to Shield Privacy Of Cellular Calls Is Breached By John Markoff San Francisco, March 19 -- A team of well-known computer security experts will announce on Thursday that they have cracked a key part of the electronic code meant to protect the privacy of calls made with the new, digital generation of cellular telephones. The announcement, intended as a public warning, means that -- despite their greater potential for privacy protection -- the new cellular telephones, which transmit streams of digital information in code similar to computer data, may in practice be little more secure from eavesdropping than the analog cellular phones, which send voice as electronic patterns mimicking sound waves, that have been in use the last 15 years. It was such eavesdropping, for example, that caused trouble for Newt Gingrich when a Florida couple listened to his cellular phone conversation in December about the Congressional ethics inquiry. Now that digital wireless networks are coming into use around the nation, the breaking of the digital code by the team of two computer security consultants and a university researcher confirms fears about privacy that were raised five years ago when the communications industry agreed under Government pressure to adopt a watered-down privacy technology. Several telecommunications industry officials said the pressure came from the National Security Agency, which feared that stronger encryption technology might allow criminals or terrorists to conspire with impunity by cellular phones. But independent security experts now say that the code is easy enough to crack that anyone with sufficient technical skills could make and sell a monitoring device that would be as easy to use as a police scanner is. Such a device would enable a listener to scan hundreds of wireless channels to listen in randomly on any digital call within a radius ranging from 1,000 feet to a number of miles. Or, as with current cellular technology, if a specific person was the target of an eavesdropper, the device could be programmed to listen for any nearby digital call to that person's telephone number. Other possible transgressions would include using the device to automatically harvest all calling card or credit-card data transmitted with nearby digital wireless phones. And, because of a loophole in the Communications Act of 1934, making and selling such devices would not be illegal, though actually using one would technically be against the law. These monitoring devices are not yet available, but security experts said that a thriving gray market was certain to develop. And with technical details of the security system already circulating on the Internet instructions for cracking it will almost certainly make their way into the computer underground, where code breaking and eavesdropping are pursued for fun and profit. Technical details of the security system were supposed to be a closely guarded secret, known only to a tight circle of industry engineers. But the researchers performed their work based on technical documents that were leaked from within the communications industry and disseminated over the Internet late last year. "The industry design process is at fault," said David Wagner, a University of California at Berkeley researcher who was a member of the team that broke the code. "We can use this as a lesson, and save ourselves from more serious vulnerabilities in the future." Communications industry technical experts, made aware of the security flaw earlier this year, have been meeting to determine whether it is too late to improve the system's privacy protections. Already the digital technology is in use in metropolitan areas, including New York and Washington, where either the local cellular networks have been modified to support digital technology or where new so called wireless personal communications services are being offered. "We're already in the process of correcting this flaw," said Chris Carroll, an engineer at GTE Laboratories, who is chairman of the industry committee that oversees privacy standards for cellular phones. But Greg Rose, a software designer for the Qualcomm Inc. a leader in digital cellular systems said that fixing the flaw would be "a nightmare." Tightening the security system, Mr. Rose said, would involve modifying software already used in the computerized network switching equipment that routes wireless digital telephone calls, as well as the software within individual phones. Currently, about 45 million Americans have cellular phones, though most of them so far are based on an older analog standard that offers no communications privacy. But cellular companies are gradually converting their networks to the new digital standard, and the new personal communications services networks going into operation around the country also employ the digital encryption system. Nearly a million P.C.S. phones have been sold in the United States, according to cellular industry figures. Besides Mr. Wagner, the other researchers who cracked the code were Bruce Schneier and John Kelsey of Counterpane Systems, a Minneapolis consulting firm. Mr. Schneier is the author of a standard textbook on cryptography. The new digital wireless security system, which was designed by cellular telephone industry engineers was never intended to stop the most determined wiretappers. But because digital calls are transmitted in a format corresponding to the one's and zero's of computer language, they are more difficult to eavesdrop on than conventional analog calls, which are transmitted in electronic patterns. And digital calls protected with encryption technology -- basically a mathematical formula in the software that scrambles the signal -- would be all the harder for a third party to listen to surreptitiously. Because the encryption system that the industry adopted in 1992 was deliberately made less secure than many experts had recommended at the time, privacy rights advocates have been warning since that the code could be broken too easily. An announcement Thursday that the code has indeed been cracked would seem to bear out those concerns. "This should serve as a wake-up call," said James X. Dempsey, senior staff counsel for the Center for Democracy and Technology, a public interest group. "This shows that Government's effort to control encryption technology is now hindering the voice communications industry as well as the data and electronic communication realm." Industry executives acknowledged that steps must be taken to address the problem. "We need strict laws that say it is illegal to manufacture or to modify a device which is designed to perpetrate the illegal interception of P.C.S. telephone calls," said Thomas E. Wheeler, president of the Cellular Telephone Industry Association, a Washington-based trade group. Mr. Wheeler said the weaker privacy technology had been adopted not just to appease the Government but because makers of wireless communications hardware and software wanted to embrace a technical standard that would meet export regulations. Those rules, based on national security considerations, sharply curtail the potency of American-made encryption technology. The three computer researchers who broke the code belong to an informal group of technologists who believe strongly that powerful data-scrambling technologies are essential to protect individual privacy in the information age. These technologists, who planned to release their findings in a news release on Thursday, argue that the best way to insure that the strongest security codes are developed is to conduct the work in a public forum. And so they are sharply critical of the current industry standard setting process which has made a trade secret of the underlying mathematical formulas used to create the security codes. "Our work shows clearly why you don't do this behind closed doors," Mr. Schneier said. "I'm angry at the cell phone industry because when they changed to the new technology, they had a chance to protect privacy and they failed." Mr. Carroll, head of the industry's privacy committee, said it planned to revise the process for reviewing proposed technical standards. [End]

1 0

WebWorld 7-8
by Bubba 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

FBI Wiretap Payments
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The FBI has published in the Federal Register today: Implementation of Section 109 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation, DOJ. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This rule implements section 109 of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which requires the Attorney General to establish regulations which set forth the procedures that telecommunications carriers must follow in order to receive reimbursement under Sections 109 and 104 of CALEA. CALEA requires that this rule enable carriers to receive payments in a timely and cost- efficient manner while minimizing the cost to the Federal Government. Specifically, this rule sets forth the means of determining allowable costs, reasonable costs, and disallowed costs. Furthermore, it establishes the requirements carriers must meet in their submission of cost estimates and requests for payment to the Federal Government for the disbursement of CALEA funds. In addition, this rule protects the confidentiality of trade secrets and proprietary information from unnecessary disclosure. Finally, it sets forth the means for alternative dispute resolution. ----- http://jya.com/fbi032097.txt (177K)

1 0

Re: U.S Mint Electronic Cash Study
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Sender: e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com Reply-To: jmuller(a)brobeck.com (John D. Muller) Mime-Version: 1.0 Precedence: Bulk Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 08:38:05 -0800 From: jmuller(a)brobeck.com (John D. Muller) To: Multiple recipients of <e$(a)thumper.vmeng.com> Subject: Re: U.S Mint Electronic Cash Study Federal Reserve Governor Kelley and New York Fed President McDonough have both stated that the Fed has no plans to issue electronic money. See: http://www.bog.frb.fed.us/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/19960618.htm http://www.ny.frb.org/pihome/news/speeches/sp961008.html ---------- The e$ lists are brought to you by: Intertrader Ltd - Commerce Solutions in the UK Visit <http://www.intertrader.com/> for details ... Where people, networks and money come together: Consult Hyperion http://www.hyperion.co.uk info(a)hyperion.co.uk Like e$? Help pay for it! See <http://www.shipwright.com/rah.html> Or, for e$/e$pam sponsorship, see <http://www.shipwright.com/rah/> Thanks to the e$ e$lves: Of Counsel: Vinnie Moscaritolo <mailto:vinnie@webstuff.apple.com> (Majordomo)^2: Rachel Willmer<mailto:rachel@intertrader.com> Commermeister: Anthony Templer <mailto:anthony@atanda.com> Interturge: Rodney Thayer <mailto:rodney@sabletech.com> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Never attribute to conspiracy what can be explained by stupidity." -- Jerry Pournelle The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/rah/

1 0

Report from Supreme Court on CDA arguments
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************** http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,744,00.html The Netly News Network @The Supreme Court March 19, 1997 By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Noah Robischon (noah(a)pathfinder.com) U.S. Supreme Court justices pummeled government proponents of the Communications Decency Act this morning during a review of the law that will set new standards for free speech in the 21st century. The notorious CDA, reviled throughout cyberspace since the day it was signed by President Clinton in February 1996, would criminalize the ill-defined category of "indecent" communications on the Net. A Philadelphia federal court struck down the law a year ago. Justice Antonin Scalia called the lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union against Attorney General Janet Reno, "a distinctive form of First Amendment argument unlike others" because it covers an uncharted and rapidly developing communications medium. "That's a new case for us," he said. Deputy Solicitor General Seth Waxman argued that the CDA merely established boundaries on the Net and made it harder for pornographic material to fall into the hands of minors. He likened the law to a cyber-zoning ordinance; without it, he said, the Internet "threatens to give every child a free pass to get into every adult movie theater or bookstore in the country." But less than a minute after Waxman started, the justices impatiently plowed into his presentation. Justice Stephen Breyer demanded: "Suppose a group of high school students decides to talk over the Internet and they want to talk about their sexual experiences. I mean, that's been known to happen in high school." Would they "be guilty of a federal crime?" Justice Antonin Scalia cut in, joking: "There's no high school student exemption?" "You might find it in the legislative history, but I do not," Waxman replied. For much of the 70-minute hearing, the discussion swirled around the question of how netizens could comply with the CDA. Waxman claimed that the act includes a battery of ways to protect a person from prosecution -- visitors to "indecent" web sites would be required to provide credit-card numbers, for instance. But Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was unmoved. "How does that fit in with the use of web sites by noncommercial users, libraries?" she asked. Justice David Souter wondered if the portions of the act banning the "display" of indecent materials would imprison parents. "I take it a parent who allows his computer to be used by a child viewing indecent material, that parent would go to prison," he said. When Waxman demurred, Scalia took up the chase. "No... One of those offenses is a display offense," he pointed out. Chastened, Waxman replied, "I see your point." Bruce Ennis, arguing on behalf of the ACLU and American Library Association coalitions, contended that the CDA bans speech, even for adults; is not as effective as blocking software; and is unconstitutionally vague. Justice Scalia, who noted that he uses a computer, pointed out that technology is rapidly changing. "So much of your argument is based on what's currently available," he said to Ennis. "This technology is changing so quickly. Is it possible that this statute is unconstitutional now but could be [constitutional] in four or five years?" Ennis replied: "Not as it's written." During a subsequent press conference, Ennis added that indeed, the technology is changing, and is giving parents more control over what their children do and see online. "Precisely because the technology is changing, the government should not be trying to enforce this law," he said. The ACLU attorneys who joined Ennis were grinning: the justices appeared to understand the nature of communications online, noted that teens have rights, and focused on free speech, not porn. After the hearing, the anti-CDA protestors who had braved a chill rain to chant "Hey-ho, the CDA has got to go!" were displaced by a larger, bullhorn-wielding group of anti-porn advocates. One sign demanded, "Don't sacrifice my child on the altar of the First Amendment." One of the most vocal protestors was 19-year-old Berkeley student Kenritsu Yamamoto, who happened to be dressed as a Net cupid, complete with angel wings and a circuit board breastplate. He was acting in the Pure Love Alliance's skit illustrating how pornography and "Net abduction" harms children. In the skit, Yamamoto accidentally kills a small child to demonstrate the dangers of a world without the CDA. "If a small child buys porn at a 7-11, then the store can be held accountable," said Yamamoto. "But on the Net, there is no accountability." A few steps away, Donna Rice Hughes, Enough Is Enough's communications director, was explaining why she thought the CDA should be upheld. "Without the CDA, Larry Flynt can make his teasers and centerfolds available to kids on the Internet," she said. Across from Hughes stood Bruce Taylor, the lawyer who argued against Flynt in the Supreme Court more than a decade ago. "The technology is advancing so well that the court is going to see that people can use this stuff without violating the law," he said. If the Supreme Court disagrees and strikes down the CDA, some members of Congress have pledged to try again. Netly cornered Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), a stauch supporter of the CDA, in the basement of the Capitol after the argument. What would he do? "How to do this I don't know, but our objective hasn't changed," he replied. "Some way, somehow, we will have to find a constitutional way of doing this for kids, protecting them from porn the way we did for printed material." Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Virginia) says he hopes the high court "will give the Congress some very clear guidance." But any Congressional tinkering will come after the Supreme Court decides. A ruling is expected in early July. [McCullagh is one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the CDA.] ------------------------- Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

2 2

NSA responds to criticism over weakening cellular crypto
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 15:50:40 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: NSA responds to criticism over weakening cellular crypto John Markoff writes in today's NYT: Several telecommunications industry officials said the pressure came from the National Security Agency, which feared that stronger encryption technology might allow criminals or terrorists to conspire with impunity by cellular phones. But independent security experts now say that the code is easy enough to crack that anyone with sufficient technical skills could make and sell a monitoring device that would be as easy to use as a police scanner is. Below the NSA's Clint Brooks responds to Dave Banisar. -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 18:08:28 -0500 From: Dave Banisar <Banisar(a)epic.org> >Date: Thu, 20 Mar 1997 17:35:44 -0500 >From: Clinton Brooks <cbrooks(a)romulus.ncsc.mil> >Reply-To: cbrooks(a)romulus.ncsc.mil >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: banisar(a)epic.org >CC: "Brooks, Clinton" <cbrooks(a)romulus.ncsc.mil> >Subject: Cellular Phone Flaw > >Dave, > > Re your comments on the flaw apparently found in cellular phones: > > We have released the following statement: > > "NSA had no role in the design or selection of the encryption >algorithm chosen by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). >NSA also had no role in the design or manufacture of the telephones >themselves. As we understand the researchers' claim, it appears that >the algorithm selected and the way it was implemented in the system has >led to the stated flaws. > >NSA provided the TIA with technical advice on the exportability of these >devices under U.S. export regulations and processes." > > > Clint > ========================================================================= David Banisar (Banisar(a)epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * HTTP://www.epic.org Washington, DC 20003 PGP Key: http://www.epic.org/staff/banisar/key.html =========================================================================

1 0

WOW-COM Registration
by wow-com＠wow-com.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear cypherpunks: Welcome to WOW-COM. By now you have had a chance to explore WOW-COM's rich content and features. Here are a few items to check out during your next visit. * The Wireless Daily News - updated three times a day. * WOW-COM's Career Center - The Wireless Workplace is the premiere source of wireless jobs. * Fraud and Antenna Siting Micro sites - latest news, legal developments, resources, and analyses from experts at CTIA. >From time to time WOW-COM will use email to inform you of new features. Please let us know if you do not want to receive these updates. WOW-COM does not sell or distribute its mailing lists. Sincerely, The WOW-COM Team wowcom(a)ctia.org http://www.wow-com.com

1 0