December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Deriving economic profits from writing FREE software?
by Zooko Journeyman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have an idea for a model for deriving economic profits from writing free software. It requires dcash (specifically, some money that is cheaply and easily transferrable in small amounts). People submit requests for changes to a "wishlist"/"bug report list". Along with these requests they send dcash. Various mechanisms of market and/or trusted intermediary ensure that, on the whole, the hackers who satisfy the most highly valued wishes get the most money. See Grigg 1997 for one good idea of how such a market could operate. We already have extensive networks of wishlists, bug tracking systems, and the rest of an integrated open, distributed software development system (e.g. Linux, Debian, many others). Given the ability to pay (perhaps credit cards could be made to work here? Low cost credit card transactions? Cybercash?), we could start trying to add this kind of flow of cash to some such systems. Unfortunately, i fear that such attempts may fail and disrupt currently working systems... --Zooko P.S. Hi, y'all. I've switched continents, contexts, CPUs, sensitivities and perhaps more, but i'm fine. Thanks for missing me. p.p.s. as per <a href="http://www.slashdot.org/slashdot.cgi?mode=article&artnum=685"> this slashdot.org article</a>, it is called "Open Software" from now on, not "Free Software". Tell the kids.

1 0

Re: TEMPEST open-source definition version 0.1alpha (fwd)
by Ryan Lackey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> confusing TEMPEST with NEMA No, I am certain they're TEMPEST cases; they're government security vendors, with names that include the word TEMPEST or Security or whatever, and their prices are huge. And when I said "I'd like to pay COD", they said "we only accept government purchase forms." I have a plain NEMA 19" rack with power and fans, it's quite different. Black Unicorn's post about the demise of cash is particularly true when dealing with vendors who want government POs :) The people at hacking cons who are selling TEMPEST cases are selling what I believe are the real thing acquired through a variety of methods, some legal, others perhaps not. Usually they contain crufty old PCs, but one guy had some really nice fully-enclosed TEMPEST-compliant racks. They had serious power filters at the bottom, massive fans, and shielded fan i/o. They were basically free (a few hundred dollars), but I couldn't motor freight them from the location to my home, since I didn't have anything but cash at the time. ObNonCrypto: Waiting until 10 days before fc98 to buy airline tickets when the cheap fare expired an hour ago was SO SO SO stupid. Like taking 4 c-notes and lighting them on fire. Oh well. -- Ryan Lackey rdl(a)mit.edu http://mit.edu/rdl/

2 1

Transcript of Hillary Clinton's comments on Net-regulation
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 14:54:55 -0800 (PST) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: politech(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Transcript of Mrs. Clinton's comments on Net-regulation Here's what Hillary Clinton said this afternoon about regulation of the Internet during an otherwise routine press conference in the Map Room about the "Millenium Evenings." Tonight at 7 pm EST she and the president will cybercast the first one from the east room of the White House. It's hardly surprising that our elected officials don't like the ability of the Internet to provide everyone with a platform. Even Thomas Jefferson kvetched about the excesses of the press of his day and in 1783 and 1788 endorsed laws that permitted government prosecutions of the press for printing "false facts." Though I somehow suspect that the first lady has recently been more worried about media reporting facts that may turn out to be true... -Declan === Q I just wanted to ask you about something that Gregg said. He's obviously an Internet enthusiast. But when he talked about some of the aspects of the system -- the fact that you could say something and you can't take it back, how it's so available to everyone and instantaneous, he's raised some issues that have been issues for us in the last few weeks in our business. And I wonder if you think that this new media is necessarily an entirely good thing. And also, as somebody who has been through this crucible, in the next millennium how would you like to see this new and ever more interesting -- (laughter) -- handled of things like the issues like the personal lives of public figures. MRS. CLINTON: Well, Kathy, I think that's one of these issues that Dick was referring to, that we're going to have to really think hard about. And I think that every time technology makes an advance -- when you move to the railroad, or you move to the cotton gin, or you move to the automobile, or the airplane, and now certainly as you move to the computer and increasing accessibility and instantaneous information on the computer, we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are always competing values. There's no free decision that I'm aware of anywhere in life, and certainly with technology that's the case. As exciting as these new developments are -- and I think Gregg's enthusiasm is shared broadly by Americans and people around the world -- there are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gate-keeping function. What does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation, or to respond to what someone says? There used to be this old saying that the lie can be halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on. Well, today, the lie can be twice around the world before the truth gets out of bed to find its boots. I mean, it is just beyond imagination what can be disseminated. So I think we're going to have to really worry about this, because it won't be just public elected officials. We've seen some cases where somebody who had a grudge against a girl's mother because the family wouldn't let him date her put out on the Internet that the family were child abusers. Totally private people, never stuck their toe in public life. It can be done to anybody, and it can get an audience, and it can create a falsehood about somebody. And certainly it's multiplied many times over if you happen to be in public life. I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically -- I don't have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I'm a big pro-balance person. That's why I love the founders -- checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological -- out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to -- Q Sounds like you favor regulation. MRS. CLINTON: Bill, I don't know what -- that's why I said I don't know what I'm in favor of. And I don't know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it's one of those new issues we've got to address. We've got to see whether our existing laws protect people's right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can't take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully. Q -- one of the balances, though, in this new digital age is that you can have direct communication. You're celebrating that tonight -- people can log on from anywhere. In that spirit, have you thought any more about a direct and frank conversation by the President with the country about these allegations? MRS. CLINTON: I'm not going to add anything to what the President has already said. And I think that any of you who think hard about this issue would have to agree that he's taken the right position. So I'm not going to add to that. ===

2 1

Re: Anti-Asian E-Mail
by Mixmaster 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Gennaco said prosecutors may suggest that Machado attend a racial awareness program as part of his sentence." Political re-education, anyone? Take names, take names, take names.

1 0

[Fwd: SpookTech98]
by sunder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: (Recipient list suppressed) Subject: SpookTech98 From: SpyKing <spyking(a)thecodex.com> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 1998 06:26:52 -0500 SpyKing, with a little help from his friends, is pleased to announce: SpookTech98 The Methods of Eavesdropping & Surveillance Seminar II Live from New York City Friday, June 5, 1998 Location: The Crown Plaza at the United Nations 304 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017 Sponsered by the Codex Surveillance & Privacy News, A.L.M.I.E. Association of Legal, Medical & Investigative Experts and W.A.S.P. World Association of Surveillance Professionals. If you missed it last year... Don't make the same mistake twice... You'll meet lots of great people and you'll learn a lot... In our "Methods of Eavesdropping & Surveillance" Seminar II you'll learn how various surveillance devices work... and how to protect against them... You will also learn how the spies among us access confidential information sources and learn everything there is to know about YOU... If you're serious about protecting your privacy... you can't afford to miss this seminar... enrollment is VERY limited... You will see ACTUAL Demonstrations... of the latest Surveillance equipment & Investigative techniques... We will have some vendors this year displaying their wares... If you are a vendor and would like to exhibit let us know... You will learn how: Offices/Homes are bugged Phones are tapped Cellular Calls are monitored People/Vehicles are followed Computers are eavesdropped on You will also learn how to PROTECT yourself from these surveillance techniques... We will also give a "live" demonstration of computer data interception... something everyone who "surfs" the net needs to be aware of... AND... We will "crack" a PGP message, show the targets passphrase AND the content of the message... If you're interested in privacy you shouldn't miss SpookTech98! You do NOT have to be a victim... You will receive a Wealth of Handout Material... This is no nonsense information packed seminar taught by seasoned professionals with a lifetime of surveillance experience in the field... You will ALSO Learn How the Spies Among us Obtain: Non-published telephone numbers Addresses from Non published numbers Utility Company information Health insurance information Records of Toll calls Cable company information Bank Accounts & balances Cellular Toll records Pager/Beeper user information and as an added bonus... ALL attendees will receive a FREE micro video pinhole camera and we'll show you HOW to use it to PROTECT your person and/or assets... If you're serious about protecting your privacy... you can't afford to miss this seminar... enrollment is VERY limited... Seminar Date: Friday, June 5, 1998 Hours: 9:00 AM to 6PM Location: The Crown Plaza at the United Nations 304 East 42nd Street, New York, NY 10017 Cost: Advanced Registration SLF & W.A.S.P. Members $295.00 Non-Members $350.00 Day of Seminar Registration at the Door $375.00 (Cash or Money Order Only) We have created a SpookTech98 powerpoint presentation for information purposes if anyone would like... just hit reply and request SpookTech98.ppt Refreshments will be served ALL day during the seminar including a FREE buffet lunch and SpyKing will host a FREE party for all attendees afterwards SOMEWHERE IN NEW YORK CITY... and I'll pick up the tab again ;-) Please printout this form and send with reservation. Your reservation will be confirmed to guarantee your seat. Seating is LIMITED. ************************************************************************ Registration Form SpookTech98 ************************************************************************ Name: Company: Street Address: City: State: Postal Code: Country: E-Mail: Tel: Fax: Amount Enclosed: *************************************************************************** *************************************************************************** The information supplied in this registration form is STRICTLY confidential and will NOT be supplied to anyone. It is strictly for inhouse registration confirmation. **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** Send Registration Form & Payment to: Codex Publishing 2472 Broadway, Suite 328 New York, New York 10025 USA 917-277-1983 **************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ************************************************************************* The Codex Surveillance & Privacy News - http://www.thecodex.com Moderator of "The Surveillance List"... http://www.thecodex.com/list.html The FIRST & ONLY list dedicated to Surveillance & Investigative Technology... "We don't spy on you... but we DO keep an eye on those that do..." *************************************************************************

1 0

PGP 5.5 BS upgrade
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone got the upgrade/bugfix for PGP 5.5 Business Security? I think it's 5.5.2 (?) I'm looking for the Win platform upgrade if anyone can help. Perhaps someone could upload it to a c'punk FTP site or post the URL. Thanks in advance!

1 0

UK Crypto Ban?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Campaign Against Censorship of the Internet <cacib(a)liberty.org.uk> To: ukcrypto(a)maillist.ox.ac.uk Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:18:28 +0100 Subject: Key escrow announcement A source who is a lobbyist in a non-computer sector has just called me to say that Margaret Beckett will be announcing a (compulsory?) key escrow program next Tuesday. So far I don't have independent confirmation, although Nigel Hickson recently said here that he was expecting an announcement "soon". Here's hoping we can get it out before the gvt machine controls the spin. Regards, Malcolm Hutty. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Campaign Against Censorship Tel: 0171 589 4500 of the Internet in Britain Fax: 0171 589 4522 e-mail: cacib(a)liberty.org.uk Say NO to Censorship Web: http://www.liberty.org.uk/cacib ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:57:32 +0000 To: ukcrypto(a)maillist.ox.ac.uk From: T Bruce Tober <octobersdad(a)reporters.net> Subject: More rumours? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Free Life Commentary Editor: Sean Gabb Issue Number Ten Tuesday 10th February 1998, 11:20pm ========================== "Over himself, over his own mind and body, the individual is sovereign" (J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859) ========================== Next Week's British Encryption Ban by Sean Gabb Earlier this evening, I was given confidential information by someone close to a British Cabinet Minister. I am not in the habit of speaking to such people, let alone having them leak state secrets to me. But that is what happened. In publishing what I heard, I am now risking a prosecution under the Official Secrets Acts - or, more likely, being made to look ridiculous if what I predict does not happen. These risks being accepted, here is the leak. Next Tuesday, the 17th February 1998, the Department of Trade and Industry will announce plans to outlaw the use of strong encryption software within the United Kingdom. We are to be encouraged - and ultimately forced - to encrypt our e-mail only in ways that will allow the authorities to read it. My source was vague about the details of the scheme, saying that they had not yet been circulated to the full Cabinet. But I imagine that it will be more or less a reprint of the Conservative Government's public consultation paper of March 1997. This came to nothing because of the change of Government, and it was even hoped that Labour would have a more liberal policy on Internet regulation. However, Margaret Beckett, the Minister now responsible for trade and industrial policy, is neither bright nor forceful; and she was early captured by the officials who in theory are supposed to do her bidding. If next Tuesday's consultation paper differs at all from the last one, it will be only in matters of small detail and presentation. For this reason, it is probably safe to take the last paper as a guide to what we can expect. The Government will propose creating a network of what are called Trusted Third Parties, or TTPs. These are to be organisations licensed to provide encryption services to the public - that is, software, consultancy and other support. Because they have been licensed by the State, we are to be encouraged to believe that they really are trustworthy - that they are not distributing bad encryption software, or robbing their clients in other ways. But just in case we decide not to believe any of this, it will be made illegal for any unlicensed person to offer encryption services. Here, it is worth quoting from last year's consultation paper: The legislation will prohibit an organisation from offering or providing encryption services to the UK public without a licence. Prohibition will be irrespective of whether a charge is made for such services. The offering of encryption services to the UK public (for example via the Internet) by an unlicensed TTP outside of the UK will also be prohibited. For this purpose, it may be necessary to place restrictions on the advertising and marketing of such services to the public. Enacted into law, this would make it illegal for me to copy encryption software from my hard disk for a friend, and for computer magazines to include it on their free cover disks. It would also allow a strict supervision of the material and the links given access to by British sites on the World Wide Web. The paper never clarifies why we need TTPs in the first place, or why - their need granted - they can only be trusted if licensed by the State. But it does say a lot about law enforcement and national security. Or, to be more accurate, it does say a lot in the usual code about the need to fill in any last potholes on the road to a British police state. Starting with the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the British State has given itself powers of surveillance that a Third World dictator might envy. It can tap our phones on the word of a Minister. It can burgle our homes and leave recording devices behind on the word of a senior policeman. It can trawl through and inspect any records on us held by any organisation. It can do all this without our knowledge, and without any effective system of appeal and redress. The relevant laws are careful to describe the permissions for this as "warrants". But they really are no more than what in France before the Revolution were called Lettres du Cachet - things that our ancestors boasted did not and could not exist in the freer air of England. The spread of personal computers seemed likely at first to extend the scope of surveillance still further. This had until then been limited by cost. For all the theoretical risks, sending letters in sealed envelopes through the post has always been reasonably secure: the costs of interception can only be justified in exceptional cases. For the same reason, most private papers are safe. But the routing of an increasing amount of mail through the Internet promised to bring down the costs of surveillance to the point where everyone could be watched. The storage of records on computers connected to the Internet promised to make it possible for the authorities to spy on people by remote control. The problem is the development of strong encryption software like pgp, and its growing popularity among millions of ordinary people who, though not criminals, have a strong regard for privacy. It allows us to keep our e-mail and private records secret to all but the most determined and expensive attacks. It gives to us the benefits of instant communication and mass data storage, but keeps the authorities - despite their new powers of surveillance - no better informed than in the old days of due process and envelope steaming. Therefore all the talk of Trusted Third Parties. The terms of their licences will require them to sell encryption software with keys that cannot be modified by their clients, and to collect and store copies of these keys for handing over to the authorities. Last year's document is full of promises about "strict safeguards" and the like. But the reality is this: The legislation will provide that the Secretary of State may issue a warrant requiring a TTP to disclose private encryption keys... or a body covered by that warrant. No mention of judicial involvement at the time, or judicial review afterwards - just more police state commands. We can ignore anything the Government parrots next week about law enforcement and national security - or, for that matter, child pornography and complex fraud. These really are just code words. If I were a criminal, or a terrorist, or a foreign spy, the last encryption software I would use would come from a Trusted Third Party. Strong encryption packages are available all over the Internet, or can pass from hand to hand on a single floppy disk. Nor would I worry much about laws against the transmission of data encrypted with unlicensed software. There are ways of keeping the authorities from even knowing that an Internet message contains encrypted data. Somewhere, I have an early version of a program called Steganography, created by Romana Machado. This takes an encrypted text and merges it into a graphics file. My version produces a visible degradation of picture quality. Almost certainly, the newer releases have solved this problem. Assuming I had them, and were sufficiently unpatriotic - neither applies in my case, let me add - I could e-mail this country's battle plans straight off to Saddam Hussain merged invisibly into a picture of my dog. GCHQ would never notice until the Scud missiles began landing on Cheltenham. No - the encryption ban will be aimed at us, the honest public. We are the people who tend to respect the law - or at least to be afraid of it enough to comply in most cases. It is our privacy that is to be stripped away. It is we who are to become like Winston Smith, living for every moment when the telescreens are not monitoring our facial expressions. Why this is desired I cannot say. But we are living though an age of withering trust in the common people. In this country, we are not trusted to possess guns for our self-defence - or indeed to carry carpet knives locked inside our cars. We are not trusted to choose and administer our own medicines, or to bring up our own children in the manner of our choice, or to decide whether or not oxtail soup might be bad for us. Plugging in the telescreens is only a logical next step. Normally, when I write on these issues, I work myself into a frenzy of pessimism. At the moment, though, I feel rather optimistic. Next Tuesday's proposals will cause an uproar. This will not come from the so-called civil liberties groups like Liberty - excepting a few small bodies like the Libertarian Alliance, they have all been taken over by New Labour apparatchiks who can be trusted to keep their mouths shut. It will come from the big business interests. British Telecom is the third or fourth largest telecommunications company in the world. If operates in more than 40 markets, often needing to provide its clients with very secure networks. In the City of London there are more representative offices of foreign banks than in the rest of the European Union combined. These have a taste for confidentiality. There are many other large interests - all paying billions in taxes, all likely to be very hostile to any scheme that will make them appear less useful to foreign clients. We have a Labour Government that still needs to establish itself in the public mind as a party friendly to business. These facts can surely be trusted to ensure the dropping of a scheme that would not merely turn the country into a full police state, but also do the greatest damage to British business since nationalisation. Or so I hope. ========================== Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment, published on the Internet. To receive regular issues, send e-mail to Sean Gabb at old.whig(a)virgin.net Issues are archived at <http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/> Contact Address: 25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London, SW1P 4NN; Telephone: 0181 858 0841 If you like Free Life Commentary, you may also care to subscribe to my longer, hard copy journal, Free Life, subscription details for which can be obtained by writing to me at the above address. ========================== Legal Notice: Though using the name Free Life, this journal is owned by me and not by the Libertarian Alliance, which in consequence bears no liability of whatever kind for the contents. - -- Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own | E-mail: old.whig(a)virgin.net | mind and body, the individual| <http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/> | is sovereign" | Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNOI4cDzmzFmU9IJVAQFOFAQAlLgKRAM6wTztCSVvUAAUY/g8k0iOKCGY 4s8O7c+axQUcf3e3RTxKbIPqoIeb81uIcKwv86havRuUsm2r2OHADuRBlWT7VgrR RKKCuuvrF19G4/hLTn7094NqUvnp5LAZpKOX7ITYQC/grQL8gnkd/xvpj55Z9oek idz0EU18xJo= =cNRU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- tbt -- -- |Bruce Tober, octobersdad(a)reporters.net, Birmingham, England +44-121-242-3832| | Freelance PhotoJournalist - IT, Business, The Arts and lots more | |pgp key ID 0x94F48255. Website - http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/crecon/ |

2 1

Anguilla and Ricochet
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Folks, I would like to coordinate the wireless communication efforts for FC'98 in Anguilla. If you were there last year, you know that the lack of a meaningful communication infrastructure is the number one problem on the island. If you intend to bring, or have access to, wireless modems [Ricochet], satellite ground stations [VSAT, INMARSAT], or the like, please get in touch with me immediately. Thanks, -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

1 0

Re: Me & Louis Freeh
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> writes: > Just got mail -- > > >Have some friends in the FBI and I just thought that you would like to > >know that Louis Freeh personally considers you, and I quote, and > >"radical". Amazing, isn't it? > > > >Just thought you would like to know what the great Louis Freeh thinks of > >you... > > Somehow I get the impression that FBI directors don't like "radicals" much... I don't like people who forge quotes from me in their netly news "exposes", as Declan has done. Center for Democracy in Technology doesn't like Declan either - they've even complained to Declan's editors at Time Warner about his lies and fabrications. What does it mean when the Vulis, CDT, and the FBI all agree? P.S. Declan, are you an alcoholic? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

www.lanl.gov
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Bleep! I pulled up www.lanl.gov (for whatever reason), flipped back to my ISP shell account, did some stuff, logged out. Five minutes later, my PPP connection timed out, and so the line dropped. Two minutes after that, my computer dialed up my ISP and connected to the Net again: it was the LANL page. I hit 'STOP', and the connection timed out again, and that was that. I hate the way there isn't some choice about allowing (JAVA?) to NOT do that unless expressly allowed. I wonder what LANL loaded into my system that needed Net connectivity after seven minutes??? ---guy Vulgersauris is a shadow of his former self.

3 3