December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Nowhere Justice
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A distinguishing feature of the complaints and indictments of suspects in the African Embassy bombings is the use of the phrase "in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, as that term is defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 7(3), and outside the jurisdiction of any particular state or jurisdiction," to apparently lay claim to the legal right of the US to arrest and imprison terrorist suspects for acts in any location where US law customarily would not be valid: http://jya.com/alqfiles.htm Would any of our legal advisors know the origin of that phrase "outside the jurisdiction of any particular state or jurisdiction?" Is this new, and devised to reduce conflict with other states who may harbor terrorists, or perhaps prevent them from being terrorist targets for cooperating with the US?

1 0

1999 San Antonio/Austin Guide to Business Technology
by Jennifer Stinson-- BDSI 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Prospective Buyers are Asking for Information about Your Products and Services Let them know that your company is local and can supply what they need by participating in the 1999 Guide to Business Technology. The Guide is an annual publication that is distributed to local and regional companies giving them useful buying information about services and products such as: * Cellular * Computer Hardware * Computer Networking * Computer Software * Computer Telephony Interface * Consulting * Emerging Technology * Internet Access * Intenet Marketing * Outsourcing * Software Development * Video Conferencing * Wireless Communications * Y2K I am contacting you, because you were listed in the search engines as having products and services tht fit the needs of the prospective buyers we contacted. To get more information, go to: http://www.biztech99.com or email: jstinson(a)trip.net **Note you will only receive this message once, this is not a list, you do not need to respond with "remove"

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:07 PM 10/6/98 -0700, Michael Motyka wrote: >> ITALIAN dignitaries who fear being kidnapped are having >> microprocessor homing devices planted in their bodies so police can >> track them down if they are abducted. >> >Where can I buy one of these things for my cat? My master password is >tatooed inside her upper lip. > You must either have a large cat or an insecure password. Or a very precise veterinary tattooist.

1 0

EVEN MORE FREE PORN: STUFFED HAS 10 LINKS TO 100S OF FREE PICS, NEW EVERY DAY
by STUFFED THU OCT 8 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

+ 30 SUPERB, HI-RES, HOT PHOTOS + 5 SUPER SEXY STORIES + ZEE ASS + FIRM BOOBS + GIMMIE PORN + DANGEROUSLY HOT FEMALES + ULTRA SEXXX 2000 + ADULT PORN PICS + INTO THE NIGHT + XXXPOSE + SULTRY WOMEN + 1ST ALL AMERICAN GIRLS + BONUS PIC 1 -> http://stuffed.net/home/28742.htm + BONUS PIC 2 -> http://stuffed.net/home/17196.htm + BONUS PIC 3 -> http://stuffed.net/home/25298.htm + BONUS PIC 4 -> http://stuffed.net/home/21319.htm + BONUS PIC 5 -> http://stuffed.net/home/511.htm + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- If you haven't visited STUFFED in the last few days, you're in for a real treat. It's faster than ever before and now, as a subscriber, you get 35 FREE new pics every day, plus over 100 more at carefully selected FREE sites we link to. This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > The only problem is your statement that one can dominate > > "saturable" markets without some artificial "mechanism." > > Who said anything about 'artificial'? I did. I state you cannot have a coercive monopoly without artificial barriers (and hence a free market cannot have a coercive monopoly) and you disagree. I am not sticking any terms where they don't go, you have consistently theorized monopolies can exist in a free market. Perhaps you should re-read my statement and not assume negatives where I clearly did not write them. > talking a free-market, there are *only* two participants; That is a twisted and absolutely unjustified definition of a free market. A free market lacks forceful restriction or prohibition of free [consensual] trade. EXCEPT that which violates individual rights. I will argue that an anarcho-capitalist market that treats force as a commodity is NOT a free market. There can be participants acting as agents, intermediaries and arbiters for the traders. > > If you mean dominate by > > market share, then sure that is possible. > > I mean *dominate* the market. You cannot define a word with itself. What is *dominate* in context of a market, and does that dominance imply the possession of arbitrary power? > > have arbitrary power over the market -- that is the > > definition of a coercive monopoly. > > No, that is the definition of monopoly. The only valid definition, yes. I will gladly accept the invalidation that dominant or exclusive market share necessarily constitute a monopoly, as that does not in itself prove arbitrary power (immunity from market economics). > > You will find that that is not possible without an > > artificial barrier to competition. > > Demonstrate please. The problem with this view is that it > implies that given sufficient time *any* market strategy > will fail. In other words there is no best or efficient > strategy for a given market. There is but ONE market strategy: to price at a point lower than new entrants could sustain their business, and constantly increase productive efficiency and reduce costs. This works great in the short term, especially in emerging industries, but it is statistically improbable for a company to maintain perfection. The market is not static, it is always changing and technology often favors new entrants who are not encumbered with legacy technology. It is less relevant that such a company is unlikely to maintain that position forever, but that such efficient dominance is good for the market. Productive efficiency raises the standard of living. Matt

2 1

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seems the government has required key-escrow in exchange for imaging- satellite licenses for some time. With the "national security" password. 1.Any U.S. entity that receives an operating license is required to maintain a record of all satellite tasking from the previous year, which the U.S. Government is permitted to access. 2.The operational characteristics stated in the application for license may not be altered without formal notification and approval of the Department of Commerce. 3.The license does not relieve the Licensee of the obligation to obtain export license(s) pursuant to applicable statutes. 4.The license is normally valid only for a finite period (10 years) and is not transferable or subject to foreign owners above a certain threshold without specific permission. 5.Encryption devices, which deny unauthorized access to others during periods when national security, international obligations and/or foreign policies may be compromised, must be approved by the U.S. Government. 6.The licensee must use a data downlink which allows the U.S. Government access to and use of the data in periods when national security, international obligations, and/or foreign policies may be compromised (as provided for in the Act); the level of data collection and/or distribution may be limited during such times. 7.During periods when national security or international obligations and/or foreign policies may be compromised, the U.S. government maintains the right to "require the licensee to limit data collection and/or distribution by the system to the extent necessitated by the given situation." 8.If the Licensee wishes to enter into a significant or substantial agreement with new foreign customers, the U.S. Government requires notification by the Licensee to give the U.S. government "opportunity to review the proposed agreement in light of the national security, international obligations and foreign policy concerns of the U.S. Government." http://www.ta.doc.gov/oasc/rmtsens.htm

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1998 13:20:41 -0700 > The only problem is your statement that one can dominate "saturable" > markets without some artificial "mechanism." Who said anything about 'artificial'? You have a sneaky habit of sticking terms in there where they don't go hoping somebody won't catch it. We're talking a free-market, there are *only* two participants; provider and consumer. If I allow 'artificial' in there then there is the explicit assumption that a third party is now involved. I won't accept a bastardization of free-market in that manner. If you want to expand your argument by the injection of these spurious terms (they aren't relevant to my argument) feel free. Be warned I will continue to point out the distinction vis-a-vis the impact on conclusions. > If you mean dominate by > market share, then sure that is possible. I mean *dominate* the market. Quit sticking extra terms in there trying to subtly change the meaning. I promise you I will notice so you can quit now. > ALCOA dominated via low prices and high efficiency. Domination in the > bad sense is to be immune from the laws of supply and demand, and hence > have arbitrary power over the market -- that is the definition of a > coercive monopoly. No, that is the definition of monopoly. Now what and how they got and retain that position may invoke coercion but it *isn't* a requirement for monoplies by definition. Don't try to confuse method with type. > You will find that that is not possible without an > artificial barrier to competition. Demonstrate please. The problem with this view is that it implies that given sufficient time *any* market strategy will fail. In other words there is no best or efficient strategy for a given market. In the past when this has been brought up I've asked for an explanation of how this dynamic works and specificaly what prevents such best-of-breed examples from existing. I'm still waiting for such an explanation. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

3 2

Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code)
by Jim McCoy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Frank O'Dwyer writes: >Agreed. For example, having SSLeay (say) used in some proprietary >program or other would achieve very little in the way of "cypherpunk >goals" (unless perhaps the company voluntarily published improvements >and bug fixes for SSLeay). Excuse me? What exactly to you think the "cypherpunk goals" are? It seems to me that promoting the adoption of strong crypto by everyone is high on the list and when we say "everyone" we mean to include the vast majority of users who are using propriatary and closed-source programs. That means that if a proprietary program uses SSLeay or any other crypto library to give the program strong crypto then the "cypherpunk goals" are being achienved. I don't give a damn whether the application is "free" or not, I care whether or not it provides users with good security and privacy. The relative freedom of the program (regardless of who is defining the word freedom) is incidental to the matter. If Microsoft came out with a statement that they were going to use SSLeay to provide all users (foreign and domestic) with strong crypto at all levels of the OS I am quite certain that Eric would be quite happy with this outcome even though no source would be shared and no improvements or bug fixes would come back from Redmond. jim

6 11

[Fwd: [Spooks] British Telecom-Menwith Hill connection]
by Sunder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: Spooks <spooks(a)qth.net> Subject: [Spooks] British Telecom-Menwith Hill connection From: Bob Margolis <rttyman(a)wwa.com> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 1998 23:32:36 -0500 Reply-To: Bob Margolis <rttyman(a)wwa.com> Sender: owner-spooks(a)qth.net BT condemned for listing cables to US sigint station 4 September, 1997 A judge has lambasted BT for revealing detailed information about top secret high capacity cables feeding phone and other messages to and from a Yorkshire monitoring base. BT admitted this week that they have connected three digital optical fibre cables - capable of carrying more than 100,000 telephone calls at once - to the American intelligence base at Menwith Hill, near Harrogate. Menwith Hill is run by the US National Security Agency (NSA), which monitors the world's communication for US intelligence. NSA acknowledges that "the Hill" is the largest electronic monitoring station in the world. Over 1,200 US civilians and servicemen work round the clock at the base, intercepting and analysing communications mainly from Europe, Russia and the Middle East. Much of the information reaching the base comes from spy satellites. The base has 26 large white golfballs or "radomes" for space communications, making it an inescapable landmark in the Yorkshire dales. In a courtroom fiasco this week, British Telecom's solicitors first sent documents and a witness to give details of the cables to York Crown Court, where two women campaigners were appealing against conviction for trespassing at the station. The next day, they sent a second solicitor to attempt to silence their own witness and to withdraw evidence already given. Judge Jonathan Crabtree agreed to grant public interest immunity "BT had no business whatsoever to disclose anything of the kind", he said. He then ordered Mr R.G. Morris, BT's head of emergency planning, not to give any more evidence about the secret cables. After being privately briefed in his chambers by BT's second solicitor, the judge said that it was immaterial if Menwith Hill was spying on British citizens and commercial communications and may have cost British companies in billions of dollars of lost sales. "The national interest of the United Kingdom, even if if is conducted dishonestly, requires this to be kept secret", said Judge Crabtree. "The methods of communicating to and from Menwith Hill, whether military intelligence or commercial spying, is clearly secret information. The governments of the United States and United Kingdom do not want this information to be divulged", he explained. But he said that BT's list of secret cables in and out of Menwith Hill could not be withdrawn from the case. "Half the cat is out of the bag. The contents of the letter are now in public domain. I just don't know what BT think they were doing", he added. According to the letter, the Post Office (now BT) first provided two high capacity "wide bandwidth" circuits to Menwith Hill in 1975. They were connected on a coaxial cable to the BT network at Hunters Stones, a microwave radio station a few miles from the US base. During the 1970s and 1980s, almost all Britain's long-distance telephone calls were carried on the microwave network of which Hunters Stones is part. The existence of the cables connecting the network to Menwith Hill has been known since 1980, but the authorities have always refused to comment. BT now claims that the cables were connected directly to the United States via undersea cable, and did not link to other parts of the British system. The system was upgraded in 1992, says BT, when a new high capacity optical fibre cable was installed. This linked to a different part of the BT network, but was also carried directly to the United States via undersea cable. Since then, BT revealed, the capacity of the system has been trebled by adding two more optical fibre links. These could carry more than 100,000 simultaneous telephone calls. Lawyers for the two women campaigners, Helen John and Anne Lee, say they were astonished by the company's sudden change of heart. They said that the letter giving details of the cables may have been written for PR purposes, and appeared intended to suggest that BT wasn't helping NSA tap telephones. This, BT said, was a "misapprehension which is damaging to this company's reputation". BT staff also hinted that other British communications companies are supplying tapping capacity to the American base. Even as BT's solicitor was seeking to have his evidence prohibited, BT's witness was outside court giving further information to the women's solicitor implying that other British communications companies were also involved in the spying activities at Menwith Hill. "You should ask me about other companies", he said before he was silenced. Tony Benn - who was the Postmaster General at the time cables were first installed connecting Menwith Hill to the British communications network - also gave evidence. He said that although a Cabinet minister and privy councillor, he had been told nothing of the secret arrangements with the Americans. BT were ordered to pay the legal costs caused by their change of heart. The judge accused them of giving away confidential commercial information and national secrets. "If I had a burglar alarm system, I would now think twice about having it operated by BT", he said. --- Submissions should be sent to spooks(a)qth.net To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe spooks" to majordomo(a)qth.net

3 2

IP: ISPI Clips 5.32: FBI & Privacy Advocates Battling Over Wiretapping
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: "ama-gi ISPI" <offshore(a)email.msn.com> Subject: IP: ISPI Clips 5.32: FBI & Privacy Advocates Battling Over Wiretapping Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 00:10:29 -0700 To: <Undisclosed.Recipients(a)majordomo.pobox.com> ISPI Clips 5.32: FBI & Privacy Advocates Battling Over Wiretapping News & Info from the Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) Monday October 12, 1998 ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This From: ABCNews.com, October 8, 1998 http://www.abcnews.com Privacy on the Line http://www.abcnews.com/sections/tech/DailyNews/wiretap981006.html Law enforcement and privacy advocates are battling over wiretapping boundaries in the digital age. By Michael Martinez ABCNEWS.com The FBI wants to be able to tap your cell phone. And it wants your phone company to pay for the privilege of allowing the FBI to tap your cell phone. That, at least, is the contention of privacy advocates and of the telephone industry, which is under federal mandate to open all new telecommunications technologies to wiretap access. Under the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, telecommunications companies are required provide wiretap capabilities for all of their new systems. Passed by Congress in 1994, CALEA mandated that telecommunications companies comply with access requirements by Oct. 25 of this year. That deadline, however, has been pushed back until June 2000 by the Federal Communications Commission as it tries to sort out just what the FBI is entitled to, and how much reimbursement telecom companies should get. Originally, CALEA set aside $500 million to pay for infrastructure upgrades on systems installed prior to Jan. 1, 1995. The United States Telephone Association and other industry groups want that cutoff point extended until 2000 as well, so that current systems are covered. Voice Mail for Dope Dealers? The telecommunications industry has introduced a wide range of popular and profitable services in recent years, everything from prepaid calling cards to Internet telephony to three-way calling. Cellular phones have become nearly ubiquitous, and newer models are almost entirely digital. Many customers have turned to third party voice-mail systems for message services. When most of these systems were designed and implemented, no thought was given to allowing federal or local law enforcement agencies access. The FBI says its entitled to access these services under current wiretap laws. Privacy advocates disagree. The FBI has been trying to use CALEA to greatly expand its surveillance capabilities in ways never anticipated by Congress when it passed the law, contends Barry Steinhardt, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The telephone companies also disagree, at least in principle. More important, if forced by the government to comply, they want the federal government to pay for the technology necessary to make it happen. The FBI claims that a compromise proposal by the USTA, which represents local telephone companies, was too narrow, and excluded many of the technological advances that have made law enforcements job more difficult. There have been situations in which weve obtained permission to wiretap, and weve been frustrated by the technology, says Stephen Colgate, assistant U.S. attorney general for administration. And the criminals know it. Things like voice mail and prepaid calling cards, these are the things used by the dope dealer or the bomb maker. The Communications Haystack The USTA, however, says the FBI is overreaching by including services not covered by the original law. The rules the FBI put forth in CALEA dont follow the intent of Congress, says Michelle Tober, communications manager for the USTA. If the FBI wants this capability, it has to be granted to them by the FCC or under a new law by Congress. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, have petitioned the FCC to limit law enforcements ability to gain access to new telecommunications services. The problem with a wiretap is that its a general search, Steinhardt says. Only one in six conversations that are recorded are criminal in nature. Increasing law enforcements powers will mean more conversations recorded that have no bearing on investigations. Were giving them the power to find a needle in a haystack. The FBI defends its proposed rules, saying that they still fall under the original law allowing wiretaps, and that privacy will still be protected by the judiciary system. We still have to go before the judge. We still have to justify the invasion of privacy in the courts, Colgate says. Were not lowering the bar by any means. This industry has been investing significant amounts of capital into the infrastructure, and weve been losing (wiretap) capability steadily. Copyright (c)1998 ABCNEWS and Starwave Corporation. --------------------------------NOTICE:------------------------------ ISPI Clips are news & opinion articles on privacy issues from all points of view; they are clipped from local, national and international newspapers, journals and magazines, etc. Inclusion as an ISPI Clip does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of the content or opinion by ISPI. In compliance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed free without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISPI Clips is a FREE e-mail service from the "Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues" (ISPI). To receive "ISPI Clips" on a regular bases (up to 3 - 8 clips per day) send the following message "Please enter [Your Name] into the ISPI Clips list: [Your e-mail address]" to: ISPIClips(a)ama-gi.com . The Institute for the Study of Privacy Issues (ISPI) is a small contributor-funded organization based in Victoria, British Columbia (Canada). ISPI operates on a not-for-profit basis, accepts no government funding and takes a global perspective. ISPI's mandate is to conduct & promote interdisciplinary research into electronic, personal and financial privacy with a view toward helping ordinary people understand the degree of privacy they have with respect to government, industry and each other and to likewise inform them about techniques to enhance their privacy. But, none of this can be accomplished without your kind and generous financial support. If you value in the ISPI Clips service or if you are concerned about the erosion of your privacy in general, won't you please help us continue this important work by becoming an "ISPI Clips Supporter" or by taking out an institute Membership? We gratefully accept all contributions: Less than $60 ISPI Clips Supporter $60 - $99 Primary ISPI Membership (1 year) $100 - $300 Senior ISPI Membership (2 years) More than $300 Executive Council Membership (life) Your ISPI "membership" contribution entitles you to receive "The ISPI Privacy Reporter" (our bi-monthly 12 page hard-copy newsletter in multi-contributor format) for the duration of your membership. For a contribution form with postal instructions please send the following message "ISPI Contribution Form" to ISPI4Privacy(a)ama-gi.com . We maintain a strict privacy policy. Any information you divulge to ISPI is kept in strict confidence. It will not be sold, lent or given away to any third party. ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer **********************************************

1 0