December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Crypto Legality Question
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*My* understanding is that this is violation of United State law, irespective of Canada. But hell, IANAL. At 11:03 PM 9/29/97 +0100, Adam Back wrote: > > >Will Rodger <rodger(a)worldnet.att.net> writes: >> At 01:25 PM 9/29/97 +0000, Jim Burnes wrote: >> > >> >ACME corporation, a mostly Canadian outfit with a major >> >subsidiary in the US, wants to roll out corporate wide crypto. >> > >> >Most of their network operations are in the US except one >> >of their offices in Ireland. >> > >> >Question (1): Can they buy a strong crypto package in the >> >US and physically roll it out to both Canada and Ireland. >> >> Nope. Though Canada allows export of strong crypto generally, >> Canadians may not re-export US products once they enter the country. > >This is not the way I understand it. > >You can re-export strong crypto from Canada, you just have to inform >the appropriate Canadian government department that you have done so. > >So procedure is: 1) import software from US, 2) write appropriate >Canadian export department telling "I'm going to export blah to xyz >corp offices in Ireland", 3) export it. > >That is, there is a loop-hole, you don't have to ask permission for >export, you just have to inform them you're going to do it. (You >might want to check this out with a Canadian lawyer familiar with the >rules, and loop-holes). > >So you informed them. They can't do anything about it. They won't >like it, but they don't have to. > >I'm told Kerebos was exported by this route. US -> Canada -> UK. >100% legally. > >Adam >-- >Now officially an EAR violation... >Have *you* violated EAR today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ > >print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> >)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc` > > > obligatory pgp key: -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 4.5 mQENAjMPX3sAAAEIAL8U6IqpMkqM3TcIqU/q7iot8pYk4ifVNaNlIYwwoYmPXH/T dabDzgkQg7h1QsEJU71Ze8EdHmKksfeBEVppJV6X9SyzpFOCgrI/Qr7hMbxnecci SVk2/B2lf4tUPuqm/DGRfAUcd4iG7Gjhw5GRh9Us/jrEtkqr3iIES+9pSNvrEsgB xYYR39eaYwe0gheExaO7vtvDDPUM7C3spbcnwOyLCpURpLCAMHUO8DQc2FO/fN4z TqqIFOect2ea4LYHr0o29RrtY9J85lQj3df8LQvIJWjwzAFfBqOU1KUdXqTayzUj rvY4ZL/1vhTJ5QmlBJ6ognqwk7PVN0SesspU2okABRG0IGdyZWdnIHBlcnNvbmFs IDxnZWVtYW5AYmVzdC5jb20+ =H0bC -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Remailers and ecash (fwd)
by Fisher Mark 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate writes: >What would motivate an average consumer to use an anonymous remailer? > >Clearly simple anonymity or writing nasty letters to Grandma anonymously are >not going to motivate most folks irrespective of cost - they simply have no >interest in such activities. So, the question becomes: > >What besides raising hell anonymously, laundering money, and defeating >merchant purchase traffic analysis are commercial anonymous remailers good >for? Well, maybe the avenue to pursue isn't the average consumer, but the average employee. I don't doubt that at least some companies are under email traffic analysis by their competitors (and/or their competitor's governments) to get a clue about future directions for their products. I could see where many (eventually most) companies would send email to each other using remailers, so that only the companies involved know that they communicated with each other. Internet email doesn't provide the same level of privacy that snail mail, phones, and faxes do now. With the use of remailers, Internet email could provide more privacy than snail mail, phones, or faxes. ========================================================== Mark Leighton Fisher Thomson Consumer Electronics fisherm(a)indy.tce.com Indianapolis, IN "Their walls are built of cannon balls, their motto is 'Don't Tread on Me'"

1 0

RE: sounds just like the snitch you are [was]RE: engineering infowar disasters
by Phillip Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- X-Mailer: MR/2 Internet Cruiser Edition for OS/2 v1.30a on or about 970927:2154 Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> left his excrement: +I suspect I'm not the only person on the list who is responsible for a +service that is a regular hacker target. If I catch someone I really +don't care what the motive for the attack was. I'm going to look to +make that person serve jail time. I do not advocate infowar disasters or any such, but: there is _nothing_ lower than a snitch; you just qualified. a snitch is without honour, lower than the thief; lower than the law. may you enjoy your visit... when do you go home to England or whatever sewer you crawled from? I never promised any sabateur that I would keep any secret of theirs. I have worked with law enforcement and the security services for many years. If I catch someone damaging my property or property I am responsible for I call the authorities. If someone is breaking into a bank and someone recognises the theif thats not a snitch, thats a hero. I believe that people who do bad things should go to prison. It isn't my fault that this description includes many of the people you send to congress. I never voted for any of them. Nor to judge from your spelling did you. I completely reject your pseudononymous attempt to posit that there is a 'them and us' and that I somehow have a responsibility towards anarchist thugs. When you grow up a bit you will learn that the real world is not like your high school. People depend on infrastructure. Lives depend on it. If people screw it up someone is likely to be killed. Freeh will have a party. Indeed its the sort of thing Nixon might have done on purpose to take advantage of the backlash. Phill

2 1

Till Debt Do Us Part, cost of the CDA, from Netly
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************ http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1452,00.html The Netly News September 30, 1997 (http://netlynews.com/) Till Debt Do Us Part by Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Ever since challenging the Communications Decency Act in early 1996, the two coalitions that filed the lawsuit have appeared unbeatable. Not only did a Philadelphia court rule that the law violated the Constitution's guarantees of freedom of speech, but the Supreme Court unanimously agreed in June. Now one group's string of victories may be ending. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), which organized the high tech lawsuit, may lose its final battle: getting reimbursed nearly $600,000 for money spent on lawyers. Under federal law, only nonprofit groups or corporations worth less than $7 million can request attorney's fees after successfully challenging an unconstitutional law. The Department of Justice claims that since such wealthy firms as America Online, Microsoft, Apple and CompuServe paid for much of the lawsuit, CDT should not be reimbursed. The government has asked for four months to investigate, charging in court papers that "other entities actually bore the costs of the litigation and merely funneled money through" CDT. In other words, if Microsoft had hired the lawyers, Bill Gates couldn't get reimbursed. The DoJ claims that Microsoft "funneled" the cash through CDT, which then turned around and asked Uncle Sam for a check. CDT opposes the government's request for additional time. Documents filed in Philadelphia district court last Friday show that the money raised was from a broad coalition of groups, not all of which expect reimbursement, says CDT's director, Jerry Berman. "Maybe all the money doesn't qualify, maybe we can't get all of it back. But certainly the small associations, CDT's money and the library money ought to come back." A major contributor to the lawsuit (and the lead plaintiff) was the American Library Association and the related Freedom to Read Foundation, which spent $475,000. The total costs of the lawsuit, though, ballooned to more than $1.3 million, and CDT still needs to raise $200,000. (CDT can't ask to be reimbursed for the full amount since its attorneys charged much more than the $130 an hour the law sets as an upper limit.) Even as CDT faces a tough struggle, the American Civil Liberties Union -- which led a coalition of nonprofit groups in a separate but coordinated lawsuit -- is optimistic about recovering roughly $400,000 in expenses. "[The law] was exactly intended to encourage organizations like the ACLU Foundation, which was set up to handle these kinds of cases on behalf of people who don't have the resources to handle these cases themselves," says Barry Steinhardt, the ACLU associate director. Unlike the CDT coalition -- which employed a law firm and was funded by outside groups -- the ACLU used its own lawyers and money and has been reimbursed for similar lawsuits before. Last Friday the ACLU filed court documents saying it was eligible for attorney's fees and arguing against delaying its request past mid-October. If CDT receives attorney's fees, the group says it first will use the money to settle outstanding bills owed to the Washington law firm of Jenner & Block, which has capped its fees at $1.1 million. "Other than payments to Jenner & Block (and possibly to the ALA), all proceeds will be used by [CDT ] to further the general goals of... protecting free speech on the Internet and empowering families who are using the Internet to protect their children from material they judge inappropriate," CDT deputy director Danny Weitzner says in court documents. At issue here is the relationship between CDT, the lawsuit's funders and the Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition, a project of CDT. The Justice Department has asked the CDT plaintiffs to respond to 40 pages of detailed questions and requests to turn over documents. "The existence and nature of the fee arrangements among the plaintiffs is critical to determining whether ineligible parties are the real parties in interest," the government says. The "ineligible" parties who helped out: America Online ($130,000), CompuServe ($50,000), Microsoft ($75,000), Netcom ($10,000), and Prodigy ($75,000). Even if CDT and the ACLU can show they qualify for a check, they have one more hurdle to leap: to show the Justice Department was wrong to defend the CDA as constitutional. You might think that after enduring 18 months of humiliating defeats in two district courts and the Supreme Court, the Clinton administration might be willing to throw in the towel and admit the law was brain-dead from the beginning. You'd be wrong. Unbelievably, the government claims it was correct to argue all the way to the Supreme Court that the CDA did not violate the First Amendment. Says the Justice Department, "Defendants will demonstrate that their defense of the CDA was substantially justified and that plaintiffs' requests for fees should be denied on that basis alone." ### ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

Re: remailer latencies
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Monty, Just so you know that the less-than-100-percent message rate doesn't necessarily mean that messages are getting lost: Last update: Tue 30 Sep 97 15:09:32 EDT remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- bureau42 remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org -----------+ 3:31:14 100.00% It's a fluke; I just happened to look at this list (by fingering rlist(a)anon.lcs.mit.edu) while I'd been on the net for a while, and so no messages were in transit. Mere seconds later, the EFGA list showed my uptime as 99.97% and Raph's list showed a meager 94.08% (it looks like somewhere, about three days ago, messages got dropped somehwere). On balance, the remailer network is rather more reliable than you seem to give it credit for. (Side note: the more reliable remailers, with bureau42 being a notable exception :) tend to be faster too. The top remailers as of _right_now_ all have reliability above 99.90% and delay times less than twenty-five minutes. Chain a few of those together and your message will almost certainly arrive in less than an hour. Few would argue that that's an unacceptable delay. Messages routinely take longer than that to be delivered, due to random nameserver burps and other "normal" factors.) dave (bureau42 gearhead)

1 0

Re: FCPUNX:EPIC Alert 4.13 on crypto and more
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:12 PM 9/26/97 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Question to ponder for the weekend: if it took this kind of "compromise" > for a bill to clear the unabashedly pro-business Commerce committee, what > will it take for a bill to become law? Crypto legislation is guaranteed to be bad. We have been saying that for years, and now it has been demonstrated. Just say no to crypto legislation. > The fate of the SAFE bill is now uncertain. The original Goodlatte > language has been substantially amended by five House committees, with > contradictory results. No contradiction: There are bad amendments and there are really bad amendments, and there are menacing and totalitarian amendments. > As such, SAFE may no longer be a viable vehicle > for the reform of encryption policy that it was originally intended to > promote. Let sleeping dogs lie. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

RE: sounds just like the snitch you are [was]RE: engineering infowar disasters
by Phillip Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Phillip Hallam-Baker <hallam(a)ai.mit.edu> writes: >> Attila T Hun <attila(a)primenet.com> writes: >> >> I never promised any sabateur that I would keep any secret of theirs. I >> have worked with law enforcement and the security services for many >> years. If I catch someone damaging my property or property I am >> responsible for I call the authorities. >You know, Phill, life is not black and white. >Let's say for the sake of argument that you are admin for a system >which is based on the security of MD4. Then along comes Boesslaers >and co, and trashes it. You going to call for him to be locked up? >How about if someone then uses this new cryptanalysis to write some >code which demonstrates the weakness... do you figure they should be >locked up for demonstrating the flaw. (Note they haven't gone within >a mile of your precious systems). >How about if some cypherpunks used this code to demonstrate that they >could decrypt something which was encrypted by a webserver running on >a machine you are admin for. Should these cypherpunks also be locked >up? This is not what was proposed at all however. Demonstrating security flaws is one thing, exploiting the flaws for malice is quite another. It is the difference between Ralph Nader demonstrating that the pinto is "unsafe at any speed" and buying one for your elderly aunt who has promised you that inheritance. >I can assure you that kerckhoffs principle applies doubly to infowar >attacks, a hostile foreign government is hardly going to be cowed by >your suggestion that you will call the feds if anyone breaks anything >you've got anything to do with. I can see it now, Sadam Hussien's >hired system-crackers, his inforwar attack team, will really be >quaking in their boots, "better not trash US internet infrastructure >-- that brit Phill Hallam-Barker guy will narc us out". That is a deliberate misrepresentation of what I said. I was pointing out that *anybody* on the list who is responsible for a system is going to want a conviction if they are attacked. >> I believe that people who do bad things should go to prison. >Personally I would rather see murderers and rapists locked up than >teenage recreational crackers who go around breaking into poorly >maintained systems for the challenge, but break nothing. I believe the opposite. So would you if you had had my experience. Even if you know that the system is secure and you have the perp under 24 hour surveillence by top people you are going to worry like hell. One of the people I advised during an incident likened it to rape. I don't think this is too far fetched. There are many hackers who see their machine as an extension of the self. The anonymity of the net cuts both ways. You don't know whether its Sadam's storm troopers or teenage shit unless and until you get a collar. >I'm kind of wondering if _you_ as the security person who was >responsible for security at the site, feel no responsibility to secure >your systems. ("Oh don't worry about security, if anyone breaks in >we'll call the feds"). I'm interested in security at every level, including severe reprisals. >I would hardly describe a bit of cryptanalysis of infowar risks as the >work of `anarchist thugs'. Neither did I. Discovering weaknesses is OK. Exploiting them is NOT. >Applying said cryptanalysis to in practice take out root DNS might not >be such a friendly thing though. But hey, if someone does it, the >real people to blame are Freeh and co for hindering use of crypto >techniques to protect the infrastructure. Not in that case. DNS security is taking time to adopt because that sort of thing just does. That is an authentication problem and there has not been a problem. Heck the NSA even published the DSS. Be exact, not every security problem can be blamed on the Feds. If you arn't carefull you will end up like Kitty Kelly who when I spoke with her yesterday began with the lie that truth is not a defense in british libel law (wasn't in 1776, has been an absolute defense since 1850 or so) then mixed up Australia and Argentina. Like you have to make sure the points are accurate. >> People depend on infrastructure. Lives depend on it. >If people are depending on the internet for mission critical >information, of the sort where people will die quickly if information >isn't getting through, they need their heads examining. If they have >been advised to use the internet for this kind of information they >need to get better advice. The assumption that the Internet and the telephone system are somehow entirely disjoint when it comes to Infowar is a somewhat naive one. The fact is that the telephone system is just as prone to attack, much more likely to use security through obscurity and so on than the Internet. >> If people screw it up someone is likely to be killed. Freeh will >> have a party. Indeed its the sort of thing Nixon might have done on >> purpose to take advantage of the backlash. >Uhh... could you explain the logic there a bit please? Don't think for a moment that if Joe Cypherpunk screws up the national power grid that that means cryptography rights for all. All it means is that Freeh is going to demand and get a blank cheque to eliminate crypto to match the blank cheque to eliminate drugs. One of the strategies Nixon's plumbers used was to deliberately sabotage their own rallies so that they could claim the violence came from the anti-war movement. Don't imagine that because something makes no sense US politicians won't insist on it. They voted for prohibition, they spend $40billion on failed drug interdiction policies and they won't stop at giving Freeh $5 billion to supress crypto. The symbol of the US government should be changed to a B2 bomber, hugely expensive ($1.5 billion and counting), with no remaining strategic role (Pentagon, RAND, Air Force Chief of Staff statements), can't be used in the rain (CNN reports) and visible on Marconi-UK build radar. US congress is insisting on building 20 more despite statements from DoD they just don't want them. Phill

1 0

Pre-Encryption Surveillance
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 15:11:43 -0400 Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: Dwight Hines <Elmhines(a)AOL.COM> Subject: Pre-Encryption Surveillance To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Please note that there are now two cases in the Federal Appellate Courts (Docket #'s 2780, 2293) in the Eleventh Circuit, and one case that will soon be appealed from the Fed Dist in Tallahassee, Florida (Hines v. American Inn) that have to do with illegal electronic surveillance of computers, as well as invasion of privacy. The Federal Election Commission has been notified as well as other law enforcement agencies. The attached file gives more detail on the Tallahassee Case. There is another case that will be filed soon in a different circuit that also includes allegations of obstruction ofjustice and witness tampering. The concern with encryption has led some folks with a criminal bent to avoid the issue altogether. Others, such as supporters of the Christian Coalition, feel they can presume police powers that are restricted just to the state. It is a major mess. If you are interested in becoming an interested party and would like to be included in the certificate of corporate disclosure and interested parties, please read the attached file and contact me. Sincerely, Dwight Hines --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Re: We're from the government and we're here to he
by Jim Burnes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just in case anyone has forgotten the mindset of Big Bro in the Land of the Freeh. Who knows? Maybe we could be judged insane. ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- By WebToday Staff Writers Sunday, September 28, 1997 ROBY, ILLINOIS (Sept. 28, 1997)-- Illinois State police fired metal balls into the chest of Shirley Allen Friday, September 26, thus escalating the violence at the "Roby Ridge" Illinois government siege. Miraculously, the 51-year-old widow did not drop to the ground as did Vicky Weaver when shot through the head and killed by a federal sharp shooter while holding her infant daughter. During a 10:30 a.m. Saturday news conference in Springfield the Illinois State Police Czar Terry Gainer changed his story once again. In an apparent irrational justification of his assault squad's aggressive behavior, he made several extemporaneous disjointed statements including: "We're here to help" and "We are looking out for her best interests" and "It's our hope that she (Shirley Allen) will grow to understand that we . . . are looking out for her..." (All three quotes taken from the September 27 issue of the State Journal-Register, the dominant newspaper of record in Springfield, Illinois. Staying consistent with his continually contradictory statements Gainer claimed it was widow Allen who first fired at police. Puzzled journalists questioned how that could be since all official prior statements from Gainer and the Illinois State Police attested to the fact that Mrs. Allen had never fired on any of the police orders prior to Friday. A growing number of Mental Health observers are now comparing and contrasting the extreme tactics taken by state authorities with the rational and controlled self defense measures taken by the 51-year-old woman authorities believe may be "mentally ill." Perhaps stranger still are reports that the earlier estimate of $125,000 for the widow's estate have now grown to current appraisals in excess of a million dollars. It has also been confirmed that there are two oil wells on her large rural property. Yet unresolved is the question of who would control the estate if the court order for mental evaluation succeeds in keeping Mrs. Allen separated from her property. Questions also remain unanswered as to the intentions of Mr. Allen's out of state relatives who initiated proceedings for the court order for involuntary psychiatric commitment. The siege began Monday when Christian County Sheriff Deputies attempted to have the widow Allen involuntarily committed into a hospital for "psychiatric evaluation." Under current Illinois laws upheld by the soon retiring Governor Jim Edgar, it is remarkably simple for virtually any family member, no matter how distant, to commit someone against their will. Once papers are signed, family members are extracted from their homes and involuntarily committed. One mental health commentator coined the phrase,"Crazy until proven (by the state) otherwise." This writer asks: "Is it any wonder that anyone who is about to be "taken away" might be somewhat less than eager to comply?" According to the State Journal-Register, Illinois State Troopers fired six bags at Mrs. Allen from their shotguns, with three bags hitting her in the chest, stating that, "Normally, that's enough to knock somebody down so police can run up and arrest the person. But Allen's bulky clothing apparently absorbed some of the shock, and she quickly fired her gun in the direction of the shooting troopers." Terry Gainer told reporters in Springfield that he hoped the woman would hear his message of peace through the media, especially since he gave her the concession of turning her electricity back on last Wednesday. Gainer seems to epitomize the mind set of advocates of big (brother) government. He just doesn't get it. He's clueless as to why Mrs. Allen didn't respond positively to his "I'm from the government and I'm trying to help (commit) you" rhetoric. Furthermore he probably can't compute this unrepentant widow's gross lack of appreciation for his generous concession of turning her electricity back on. Perhaps he presumed that this "mentally ill" woman also had a bad memory. Or maybe he has forgotten the fact that it was his police who cut off her electricity in the first place-- not to mention the other minor inconveniences, not the least of which was the lobbing of a tear gas hand grenade into the window of the belwildered widow. Regarding the gassing of this resilient woman, Christian County Sheriff Dick Mahan made this astounding admission: "Mrs. Allen lessened the effects of the gas by putting petroleum jelly on her face and running water over her head." (Editor's not: Not too crazy.) Meanwhile our government continues their headlong frenzy to fan the flames of the tax-dollar eating furnace by maintaining 12 tactical team members to surround the Allen home 24 hours a day, while reinforcements are retained to keep the watchful eyes of concerned citizens virtually blindfolded. Even members of the news media have been pushed farther and farther away from the scene. Once allowed to report on the story from up to 450 feet away from the scene, now police have completely banned all news reporters within a half mile of the home, in flagrant violation of foundational First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of the press. Predictably, members of the news media were only all too willing to comply. Staying consistent with the precedents set at Waco and Ruby Ridge, police have just succeeded in "evacuating" the last of the widow's closest neighbors. Mind you, these neighbors say there is nothing insane or dangerous about Mrs. Allen. This writer finds nothing "crazy" about Shirley Allen's amazing skills at implementing consistent common sense while under what is by most any measure would be considered to be an enormous amount of stress. That may be more than can be said about some of the actions levied by police. The State Journal-Register reported: "Friday's use of bean-bag bullets was the most direct action by law enforcement agencies since tear gas was fired into the home Monday by deputies," and went on to say, Christian County Sheriff Mahan agrees stating Mrs. Allen is "not a stupid person." So what exactly is the compelling reason Illinois authorities have that justifies their obsession to violently disrupt the peaceful existence of a widow who neighbors say is quiet, sane and not troublesome? Perhaps it is this widow's past crime record. After exhaustive background probes made into Mrs. Allen's past, authorities were finally able to unearth one token offense to which Mrs. Allen was guilty. Court archives indicated that she once ran a stop sign. If these extreme measures were being implemented in the former Soviet Union rather than in the American rural town of Roby, we may have condemned the actions of "The Evil Empire." Had this been the act of Saddam Hussein it probably would have surprised us even less. But in the United States of America, our citizenry seems to treading water not unlike the perverbial frog in the saucepan. A rogue minority within government keeps slowly turning up the heat until we boil and burst without knowing what hit us. Political spin doctors have fine tuned their craft to the point that millions of citizens are now desensitized to these escalating govenmental abuses (some say tyranny). These usurpers have succeeded in hypersensitizing the masses, addicting many to sports, O. J., or any other strategic diversion that blinds eyes and deafens ears to the cries for help from the widows and the defenseless. We simply relegate them to the government for "help." As governments gets bigger and the world get madder, all this writer can conclude is with this kind of "help" it's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for! Top Cop Gainer seems to think otherwise. As stated publicly he maintains it's clear that "she's (Mrs. Allen) a danger" to either herself or somebody else and, "We intend to stay until we can get her the medical treatment she needs." With all due respect to Mr. Gainer, it appears he may have forgotten that the "court order" (remarkably not even a warrant) authorized the County Sheriff to bring Mrs. Allen into a hospital for evaluation. It never authorized Mr. Gainer or anyone in government to issue a medical determination prior to an examination. Zeal and good intentions aside, there are plenty of other government agencies that there to "help" widow Shirley Allen. > > > >For further information you may contact the following agencies and >organizations: > >Christian County Sheriff Richard Mahan's office: 217-824-4961 > >Illinois State Police, District 9, Springfield, Media Spokesman Mark >McDonald: 217-786-7109 > >Office of Mental Health, Dr. Steiner, Associate Director: 217-782-7555 > >Christian County Senior Citizens Center: 217-824-4263 > >State Journal-Register: > >St. John's Hospital, Springfield: 217-544-6464 > >Christian County Clerk: 217-824-4966 > >Film footage is available from CBS Affiliate WCIA Television of Illinois at >217-782-2216. > >To schedule interviews members of the news media may call: 616-924-1000. Jim Burnes Engineer, Western Security, SSDS Inc jim.burnes(a)ssds.com ---- When the world is running down Make the best of what's still around - Sting

1 0

Re: Fwd: Re: Quor's cypher
by Antonomasia 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody(a)REPLAY.COM: (21 Sep 1997) > This is a really nifty encryption program. It runs about half the speed > of rc4, but seems much more secure. > > --- Forwarded Message: > > From: quor(a)nym.alias.net > Subject: Re: tell me what you think of this... > > [snip] > > /* Qcypher.c */ > > [snip] Has anybody got anything good against this ? I can get about 1/32 of the state with a simple form of differential cryptanalysis, but can't see how to progress it beyond that. My attack takes a long chunk of known text and looks for repetition. ppppppppppppppp.11.pppppppppppppppppppppp ccccccccccccccc.22.cccccccccccccccccccccc When a two neighbouring p-c pairs are the same you can test whether they have the same value of a and b. (That is a_n == a_n+1 and b_n == b+n+1, a != b usually.) This involves 16 inputs to each byte - very cheap. What I really want next is to know "a". Because c is always known (it's only a counter) if you always knew "a" you'd have a handle on "b" because only 2 (predictable) elements of the state array change with each byte encrypted. -- ############################################################## # Antonomasia ant(a)notatla.demon.co.uk # # See http://www.notatla.demon.co.uk/ # ##############################################################

2 1