December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Interesting tidbit about media controlling and censoringopinions, Web Pol...
by Nilsphone＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have noticed something else: Our networks (NBC, ABC, CBS etc) will interview a politician, on camera, and then immediately afterwards tell the viewers/listeners WHAT HE SAID! I am not talking about commentary, extrapolations, consequences, comparison with other opinions, commantaries about the truth or falsehood of what whas said, no, the TVnetspeakcritter will say "Well, we heard President Ougadougou Cleptocrate say that....." even when the interviewee spoke English, or was dubbed. Bye the way, for reasons related to those in the original mail, I much prefer subtitles to dubbing, as the speaker's voice gives away many clues, even if I am unfamiliar with his language. Regards Nils Andersson >[THE FOLLOWING IS IS A VERY INTERESTING OBSERVATION... JFA. ] >See, we have to work on demystifying all the "news" we are getting and NEVER TAKE >ANY at face value. Did you noticed often on the news they show a "talking head" >with the sound off and CBC own comentator narates what has been said. This is to >train us to get used to it (communist regime trick I've seen so often) so they can >put anything to anybody's mouth when needed - and sometimes they do already. >Nothing new under the Sun.

1 0

Intellectual Property is like a banana (McNealy)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > X-within-URL: http://www.cadence.com/features/vol3No3/mc_nealy > Do We Worry Too Much About Protecting IP? > > --> By Scott McNealy > > It seems as if everyones always worried about intellectual property, > or IP. We worry about its proprietary nature and how to protect it. > But lets take a different angle on IP and also intellectual capital > inside a company, because I think we all worry way too much about > protecting it. > > IP has the shelf life of a banana. It just doesnt last, yet were all > worried about protecting it, hiding it, securing it, storing it in a > vault. As a result, we absolutely prevent our competitors from getting > ahold of it, but we also prevent our employees from getting ahold of > it. We prevent our customers and our suppliers and our partners > from getting access to it. As a result, by the time the people who > need access to it get that access, its so old that it is effectively > a banana we wouldnt want to eat. [text deleted] ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

How to reign the federal government in...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Start a political party, but the likes of which has never walked the face of the Earth. The individual states when acting in a clear majority (>=75%) may pass Constitutional amendments without the involvement or interference of federal processes. The IRS, for example, could be shut down tomorrow or significantly modified via this mechanism without involvement at the federal level. What is needed is a political party that has a representative site in each state capital. Their job is to get proposed amendments to the Constitution on the floor of each body for vote. Think nationaly, act by state. There could be no appeal to the Supreme Court for constitutionality because it IS the Constitution. There are no requirements in the Constitution to notify or otherwise register such acts with the federal authorities. In short, it's none of their business if the people acting at the state level change the laws at the federal level. They must either comply or quit their jobs. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

RE: [ISN] Feds Want Banks to Spy on All Customers...Even You! (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Albert, please do NOT post HTML. plain-text ASCII with < 80 char wrap ONLY. Matt plain-text version follows: -----Original Message----- From: Albert P. Franco, II [mailto:apf2@apf2.com] > >Good thing I keep all my money in a steel case buried somewhere >along the Appalachian trail. No bank accounts, no credit cards. > >Ken Williams > >>From: ISPI Clips 6.51 >>From: WorldNetDaily, November 23, 1998 > >Big Brother Banks? FDIC has snooping plans >http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_exnews/19981123_xex_big_brother_.shtml >David M. Bresnahan, David(a)talkusa.com >Contributing Editor, WorldNetDaily > >Are you a potential criminal? Are you a threat to banks, airlines, a >potential spy, or perhaps an IRS tax protester? The government would like >to know and they are about to force banks to be their detectives. Isn't this called prior restraint? Isn't it specifically illegal for the government to treat all members of the public as criminals a priori? This certainly sounds like one of the grossest cases of Feds-That-Should-Die(TM) that I have ever heard. I'm sure that the founding fathers would have been stocking up on gun powder and lead over this one. And I'm NOT one of the many Libertarian/Money-Gun-and-Gold-Stashing types on this list. I far and away prefer to work inside the system peacefully. But, it does give me pause to think about it! When a supposedly NON-LEA agency such as the FuckingDICks begins creating regulations of this sort it is the most blatant proof that the constitution has died. Perhaps it is time to start draft the next version of the Declaration of Independence... Actually, we wouldn't need to change much. It was an excellent document then and now and perhaps it is time shake the dust off of it! Here's my take on a new version, (read carefully the changes in some cases are subtle): THE DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Action of the New Continental Consensus, July 4, 1999 The Declaration of the People of the United States of America ------------------------------------------------------------------------ WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, Privacy and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shown, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpation, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government*, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these people; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the present Federal Government of the United States of America is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpation, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World. It has refused its Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. (Agencies such as the NSA and CIA whose actions are wholly unsupervised and unchecked.) It has forbidden its Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till its Assent and modification should be obtained; and when so suspended, it has utterly neglected to attend to them. (Bastardization of state and local voters measures threw inappropriate judiciary interference.) It has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only. (Pick any agency... none allow for direct representation in their regulatory actions. Public comment IS NOT direct representation!) It has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with its Measures. It has investigated, harassed, terrorized, and killed members of Representative Bodies repeatedly, for opposing with its manly Firmness its Invasions on the Rights of the People. It has refused for a long Time, after such Dissolution, to allow others to act; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of the Annihilation, have not been returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposing them to all the Dangers of Invasion from it, and the Convulsions within. It has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new ownership of Lands and Properties. It has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing its Assent to Laws for respecting Judiciary Powers. (You can't sue them unless they say it's OK... And when you do who do you sue?) It has made Judges dependent on its Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries. *It has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.* It has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent or oversight of our Legislatures. (NSA, CIA, IRS, ATF, etc.) It has affected to render the Military and National Security Forces independent of and superior to the Civil Power. *It has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving its Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:* FOR quartering large Bodies of Armed Troops among us; FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: FOR cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World: (ITAR, etc.) FOR imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury: (Try to fight an "infraction" in California!) FOR transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended Offences: (Hi CJ!) FOR abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an arbitrary Government, and enlarging its Boundaries, so as to render it at once an Example and fit Instrument for introducing the same absolute Rules into these Colonies: (Ever been to a US territory?) FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: (Let's hear it for the IRS and NSA, and now FDIC!) FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever. (Who actually makes tax regulation?!) It has abducted Government here, and declared us under of its Protection and thus waging War against us. It has plundered our Seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our Towns, and destroyed the Lives of our People. It is, at this Time, transporting large Armies of Mercenaries to complete the Works of Death, Desolation, and Tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and Perfidy, scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous Ages, and totally unworthy of a civilized Nation. It has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive to bear Arms and false testimony against their Countrymen, to become the Executioners of their Friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. It has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the Inhabitants of our Frontiers, the merciless Profiteering Drug Peddlers, whose known Rule of Warfare, is an undistinguished Destruction, of all Ages, Sexes and Conditions. (Don't forget Noriega and his CIA buddies. You wouldn't get even money on the bet that they have changed their ways...) It has subverted the very essence of the Constitution and Bill of Rights which gave it birth by perpetrating the following acts of barbarism and contempt for the people: Confiscation of Personal Properties being routinely executed without the most minimum attempt at DUE PROCESS; Routine and massive warrant-less searches and seizures of the personal communications of the people; Commonplace denial of competent legal defense and availability of juries of one's peers; Unconstitutional restrictions of the movement of the people and their assets; Unconstitutional restrictions of the peoples' right to assemble, publicly and privately and secretly; IN every stage of these Oppressions we have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble Terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated Injury and imprisonment in State Mental Institutions. A Prince, whose Character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the Ruler of a free People. NOR have we been wanting in Attentions of our International Brethren. They have warned us from Time to Time of Attempts by our Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over them. They have reminded us of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. They have appealed to our native Justice and Magnanimity, and they have conjured us by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been denied the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which denounces our Union in the Spirit of Freedom, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends. WE, therefore, the People of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in GENERAL CONSENSUS, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these States, solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United States are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all Allegiance to the Federal Government, and that all political Connection between them and the Federal Government of the USA, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Signed, The names of course will be changed to protect the innocent... I may not be up to the task of editing TJ, but you get the point! I was going to send this through an anonymizer and sign it Thomas In Payne. But Fuck the MIBs. This is MY Opinion Freely Stated as I'm guaranteed by the Constitution they are so hell bent on destroying. This adaptation of such a revered document as our dear Declaration of Independence is meant to provoke thought and perhaps one last effort by many to halt the erosion of the effectiveness of what was perhaps the most important statement of what a government should be that the world has ever known. It is time that we take back our Constitution from the MIB. My only question is HOW? APF

1 0

Re: [ISN] Feds Want Banks to Spy on All Customers...Even You! (fwd)
by Michael Motyka 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I spotted the *rhetorical* steel case in the first note. The disturbing thing here is the requirement to report deviations from a pattern. That is where it becomes a NaziReptilianProctoscope$ystem. It's my fucking money, I can do whatever the fuck I want with it, whenever the fuck I want to. I wish those fuckers would look at the Fourth Amendment. The structuring stuff looks like it could get pretty wierd: how I move my money should not matter but maybe it does. Why do reptiles have such a bad name? Some of my favorite politicians are reptiles. BTW - the FDIC site state that there is no statutory requirement for a 'Know Your Customer' system. You could also say that they are not interested in little guys, that they need this stuff to do their job, but if the laws are written so that anyone can be targeted without a warrant then there is a *big* problem. Especially worrisome is automated pattern analysis without a warrant - a violation of the 4th. So, what are the alternatives to keeping your money in a standard financial institution? Seems to me that keeping it at home is pretty risky - eventually some low-life will figure it out and then you'll have to choose between your cash and your left nut. Keeping it all tied up in goods is not any bargain either. A small fraction perhaps... Mike >From the FDIC site. Pardon the formatting - it's straight from the .gov. ************************************************************************ http://www.fdic.gov/search97cgi/s97_cgi.exe?action=View&VdkVgwKey=http%3A%2… "Know> <Your> <Customer>" Policy One of the most important, if not the most important means by which financial institutions can hope to avoid criminal exposure to the institution from customers who use the resources of the institution for illicit purposes is to have a clear and concise understanding of each customer's practices. The adoption of "<know> <your> <customer>" guidelines or procedures by financial institutions has proven extremely effective in detecting suspicious activity by customers of the institution in a timely manner. Even though not required by regulation or statute, it is imperative that financial institutions adopt "<know> <your> <customer>" guidelines or procedures to enable the immediate detection and identification of suspicious activity at the institution. The concept of "<know> <your> <customer>" is, by design, not explicitly defined so that each institution can adopt procedures best suited for its own operations. An effective "<know> <your> <customer>" policy must, at a minimum, contain a clear statement of management's overall expectations and establish specific line responsibilities. While the officers and staff of smaller banks may have more frequent and direct contact with customers than their counterparts in large urban institutions, it is incumbent upon all institutions to adopt and follow policies appropriate to their size, location, and type of business. Objectives Of "<Know> <Your> <Customer>" Policy 1.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should increase the likelihood the financial institution is in compliance with all statutes and regulations and adheres to sound and recognized banking practices. 2.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should decrease the likelihood the financial institution will become a victim of illegal activities perpetrated by a customer. 3.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy that is effective will protect the good name and reputation of the financial institution. 4.A "<know> <your> <customer>" policy should not interfere with the relationship of the financial institution with its good customers. At the present time there are no statutory mandates requiring a "<know> <your> <customer>" policy or specifying the contents of such a policy. However, in order to develop and maintain a practical and useful policy, financial institutions should incorporate the following principles into their business practices: 1.Financial institutions should make a reasonable effort to determine the true identity of all customers requesting the bank's services; 2.Financial institutions should take particular care to identify the ownership of all accounts and of those using safe-custody facilities; 3.Identification should be obtained from all new customers; 4.Evidence of identity should be obtained from customers seeking to conduct significant business transactions; and 5.Financial institutions should be aware of any unusual transaction activity or activity that is disproportionate to the customer's known business. An integral part of an effective "<know> <your> <customer>" policy is a comprehensive knowledge of the transactions carried out by the customers of the financial institution. Therefore, it is necessary that the "<know> <your> <customer>" procedures established by the institution allow for the collection of sufficient information to develop a "transaction profile" of each customer. The primary objective of such procedures is to enable the financial institution to predict with relative certainty the types of transactions in which a customer is likely to be engaged. Internal systems should then be developed for monitoring transactions to determine if transactions occur which are inconsistent with the customer's "transaction profile". A "<know> <your> <customer" policy must consist of procedures that require proper identification of every customer at the time a relationship is established in order to prevent the creation of fictitious accounts. In addition, the bank's employee education program should provide examples of customer behavior or activity which may warrant investigation. Identifying The Customer As a general rule, a business relationship with a financial institution should never be established until the identity of a potential customer is satisfactorily established. If a potential customer refuses to produce any of the requested information, the relationship should not be established. Likewise, if requested follow-up information is not forthcoming, any relationship already begun should be terminated. Structured Transactions Section 103.53 prohibits the structuring of transactions for the purpose of evading the currency transaction reporting requirements. Anyone who causes or attempts to cause a bank to fail to file a CTR or to file a false CTR is covered under this section as well as anyone who attempts to structure or assists in structuring any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions. A cash transaction in excess of $10,000, which is subsequently withdrawn upon realization that a CTR is being prepared, should be reported as a possible attempt to structure a transaction. See also 31 U. S. C. 5324. Examiners should be alert to consecutive transactions involving cash in excess of $10,000. Suspect transactions should be pursued further. The following are examples of types of transactions that may be reviewed for possible structuring activity: 1.Cashed checks - pay particular attention to multiple items cashed by the same person. 2.Cash deposits. 3.Savings withdrawals/certificates of deposit redemptions. 4.Personal money orders or official checks sold. 5.Official checks sold or cashed - look for consecutive items. 6.Savings Bonds sold or redeemed. 7.Traveler's checks sold or cashed. 8.Loan payments or loan proceeds made in cash. 9.Securities sold or purchased for cash if the financial institution acts as agent for an individual and the transaction involves more than $10,000.

3 2

open-pgp / s/mime interoperability
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On the IETF s/mime list Jon Callas (PGP/NAI employee and co-author of IETF open-pgp draft for cypherpunks not following open-pgp) wrote: : I'd like to note that PGP is supported by NAI, Microsoft, Novell, : and more that are coming soon. curious as to what form Microsoft support of PGP will come in. Integrated PGP support with microsoft mail clients in later versions? Jon also wrote: : there is no reason why you can't have PGP : messages backed by X.509 certificates, and it is trivial to use S/MIME : with OpenPGP certificates. I'm planning on writing a short : informational RFC on how to do it once we all get RFC numbers for our : respective systems. open-pgp public keys aren't based on X.509 keys, so I would've thought s/mime implementation would barf on them. Are you basing this on the fact that you can extract the actual public key and repackage it as an X.509 public key? In this way you could take the same key into the X.509 / s/mime world, but you would lose open-pgp sigantures on the key, so it would lose it's certification. More recently we've been hearing that PGP6.x? or a future version of PGP does or will allow one to carry along X.509 keys, or perhaps even work directly with X.509 keys. Is this what you are referring to? (Separate question: any due date on the netscape plugin -- I want one of those!) Adam (message from IETF s/mime list the above is quoted from below). ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Mon, 09 Nov 1998 17:54:29 -0800 To: Stefan_Salzmann/HAM/Lotus(a)lotus.com, ietf-smime(a)imc.org From: Jon Callas <jon(a)pgp.com> Subject: Re: Difference between SMIME and PGP At 05:20 PM 11/4/98 +0100, Stefan_Salzmann/HAM/Lotus(a)lotus.com wrote: I am struggling on the difference between SMIME and PGP. One of my customers wants to make the decision between using SMIME and PGP. I have been talking already with them but we got stuck in detailes. Basically its quit clear. SMIME will be supported by all important industry leaders such as Netscape, Microsoft, Novell etc. I'd like to note that PGP is supported by NAI, Microsoft, Novell, and more that are coming soon. Further SMIME supports the hierarchical trust model and PGP only supports the "web of trust" model. Actually, this is false. PGP supports all trust models, direct trust, hierarchical trust, and web of trust. As I said in my previous message, PGP supports 255 levels of hierarchy. However, I forgot to say that OpenPGP does not mandate *any* trust model. As a matter of fact, the OpenPGP working group has rejected any mandate of trust model. You are permitted to use an OpenPGP certificate with PKIX evaluation rules, and still be OpenPGP compliant! Now with PGP Version 6.0, PGP will support also X.509 certificates. Those can also be loaded into an PGP client than an SMIME Client can do it. So where is the difference now? Is it just the fact that the industry decided to go with SMIME or are there more differences (advantages for SMIME) when looking more closely. Actually, the industry hasn't decided to go with anything. Furthermore, there is no reason why you can't have PGP messages backed by X.509 certificates, and it is trivial to use S/MIME with OpenPGP certificates. I'm planning on writing a short informational RFC on how to do it once we all get RFC numbers for our respective systems. For instance using RSA public key encryption versus Deffie Helman public key encryption. How about Digital Signature Standard (DSS)? I have red about DSS and understand that DSS is the standard that provides the Digital Signature Algorithm. Before applying it there has to be calculated an Digest using SHA. I always thought that calculating the digest would be the signature already!! So why using the DSA in addition? Will the digest be decrypted using the Deffie Helman private key? The issue of algorithm is orthogonal to message encoding. The PGP-S/MIME question is really one of message encoding format. Each requires DSS, and allows RSA. The DSS (Digital Signature Standard) describes how to make a signature using DSA (Digital Signature Algorithm) and SHA1 (Secure Hash Algorithm). That's how they relate. You could (for example) use DSA with RIPEMD-160, but it wouldn't be DSS because DSS specifies the hash algorithm you should be using for the signature. DSA is a signature-only algorithm. Consequently, you aren't doing a "decryption" with it when you evaluate a signature. I recommend you look in a crypto source book, like Schneier's "Applied Cryptography" or Menezes, van Oorschot, and Vanstone's "Handbook of Applied Cryptography" for details of how DSS is done. There is also source code available from a wide variety of places. Users that apply Deffie Helman exchange their public values in order to derive an secret key that will be known at both party sides. Is that secret key the private key used to encrypt message digests or is the private key generated by the DSA algorithm? Like I said, DSS has its own signature-only key. As for "Diffie-Hellman" depending on the variant of DH you're using, you may or may not have an actual key. Many real-time systems use ephemeral DH merely to exchange symmetric keys. In OpenPGP, we use the Elgamal system for encryption. S/MIME is using an X9.42 algorithm that is very close (if not identical) to Elgamal. In PGP further exist key rings that contain the public keys of other users? How does that work with X.509 Certificates that actually contain the public key. If there has to be a public key revoked, it happens in the key ring. Would it be possible to export that revoked certificate. If not the revoked public key would resist only lokally. Most systems, be they PGP or X.509, use something akin to a directory to store certs, revocations, etc. Typically, these are HTTP or LDAP based systems. Are there any differences/advantages between RSA and Deffie Helman? Again, this is orthoganal to encoding, as these are merely algorithms. But yes, of course. The security of RSA is based upon the difficulty of factoring large numbers. Most people who toss around the term "Diffie-Hellman" use it to cover an entire family of algorithms whose security is all based on the difficulty of solving discrete logs. These include DSA, X9.42, Schnorr, and Elgamal. They are all approximately of the same strength. There are also a wide variety of advantages and disadvantages. Frequently, these are the same. For example, in RSA encryption and signatures are the same, which is simple, but leads to some hygenic problems. A signature-only system like DSA is less flexible, but easier to export, and enforces good key hygene (meaning that it is bad practice to use the same key for signatures as for encryption). I could go on with a discussion of all this, but this thread is already off-topic for this mailing list. Feel free to mail me privately or phone. You see I am very confused right now and I have the feeling that all my security theories wounŽt match with those used in PGP. There are many good reasons for being confused. One of the most important ones is that there really aren't a lot of differences between the systems. They are all trying to solve the same problem, but each has a slightly different slant to it. I really would appreciate it if there would be someone helping my to remove all that dust of my mind... Thank you in advance You're welcome. Jon ----- Jon Callas jon(a)pgp.com CTO, Total Network Security 3965 Freedom Circle Network Associates, Inc. Santa Clara, CA 95054 (408) 346-5860 Fingerprints: D1EC 3C51 FCB1 67F8 4345 4A04 7DF9 C2E6 F129 27A9 (DSS) 665B 797F 37D1 C240 53AC 6D87 3A60 4628 (RSA)

3 2

Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 14:59:46 -0800 > From: Todd Larason <jtl(a)molehill.org> > Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis > Note that although it's clear that this is only for proposing amendments, our > history leaves some doubt that's what would actually happen. The current > constitution came ouf of a constitutional convention called under the Articles > of Confederation to discuss amendments, but was finally enacted under > procedures *it* specified, not the procedures specified in the Articles. Why is this problematic? When the convention was called it was with the express goal of replacing the articles. A tacit a priori admission they were faulty and needed replacement. Now, why would they ratify the new Constitution under the old rules in such a situation? They wouldn't. One day the old rules apply, the next day the new rules apply. It makes more sense to ask folks to recognize the new rules under their own aegis than some problematic hold-over. No, the intent of the Constitution was to intentionaly break the ties with the status quo and precedence. > Historically, Congress has always specified, at the time it proposes the > amendments. I believe all but the repeal of prohibition were handled using > the legislature method. Did Congress accept the prohibition amendments without a priori specifying their submission and implimentation mechanism? ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

Nov. 29 column - Christmas book giving
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 00:40:16 -0700 Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1998 23:38:45 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: vin(a)dali.lvrj.com Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vinsends(a)ezlink.com From: Vin_Suprynowicz(a)lvrj.com (Vin Suprynowicz) Subject: Nov. 29 column - Christmas book giving Resent-From: vinsends(a)ezlink.com X-Mailing-List: <vinsends(a)ezlink.com> archive/latest/599 X-Loop: vinsends(a)ezlink.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vinsends-request(a)ezlink.com Status: RO FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED NOV. 29, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Give a dangerous book for Christmas Pickings have been a little slim, I must admit, for my annual Christmas book column. At the risk of emulating the editors of Rolling Stone, with whom I parted ways when they started dismissing all the best music of the '70s as "derivative" (heck, what isn't, Parker and Coltrane are "derivative," and I happened to (start ital)like(end ital) Eric Carmen and the Raspberries) -- I must admit a certain deja vu at reviewing the 1998 literary crop. These volumes don't just remind me of better works which made the list in former years, they often (start ital)cite(end ital) those books, at length. 1) Well worth mentioning is a "how-to" paperback of about 180 pages, and one of the few volumes I've read cover-to-cover of late, "Boston on Guns & Courage," by the pseudonymous Boston T. Party, available from Javelin Press, P.O. Box 31, Ignacio, Colo. 81137-0031. The book is $17, or $10.20 apiece for six to 31 copies, but the publishers quirkily request payment only in cash (that gets you an autographed copy) or payee-blank (negotiable) money orders , threatening to return checks of money orders with a named payee. Mr. Party is of the opinion that the "thugs" who outlawed the private possession of gold in 1933 "should have been strung up from the first day," and properly dismisses many modern gun owners as "serfs with guns," demanding "If you won't fight for your Liberty, then sell your guns to us now before they're confiscated without compensation." He then spends the bulk of his book running through the options for Americans who have finally decided to arm themselves against incipient tyranny, running through the pros and cons of each caliber and type of weapon; gun safety; current and likely future gun control laws; how to buy guns without having them registered ... a handy little book, even if it's sketchy in places. Of course, I disagree with many of the author's specific recommendations. (In .308 battle rifles, if you can believe it, Mr. Party actually favors the tin-and-plastic Belgian FN-FAL over the sturdy American M-14 and its civilian version, the M-1A. Of taste there is certainly no accounting. And it's a tad careless to recommend the Soviet Tokarev SVT 40 -- "very nicely made" -- given the weapon's well-known propensity to shred its own firing pins, isn't it?) But in this author we find a kindred spirit, correctly reporting that "The feds hope to 'decapitate' the Freedom Movement by simultaneously arresting and/or eliminating several hundred key people," something they've already demonstrated with their infiltration via agents provocateurs of the burgeoning 1990s militia movement, albeit not quite "simultaneously." The author quotes Arthur B. Robinson explaining "The gun controllers are not deterred by the facts about guns and crime, because their primary fear is not of criminals. They fear ordinary Americans whose lives and freedom their policies are destroying. In this fear and in their world, they are on target." He gathers together great swatches from books which have already made this "Most Dangerous" list in previous years (and which are still highly recommended), including L. Neil Smith's "Pallas," Bill Branon's "Let Us Prey," Jim Bovard's "Lost Rights" (Laissez-Faire Books at 800-326-0996), Claire Wolfe's "101 Things To Do Till the Revolution" (Loompanics at 800-380-2230, or Laissez-Faire), and of course John Ross' masterful novel of the put-upon gun culture, "Unintended Consequences" ($28.95 from hard-to-find Accurate Press in St. Louis, so try Paladin Press at 800-392-2400, or else Loompanics), from which we again hear: "These government slugs ban our guns and they ban our magazines and they ban our ammo. They ban suppressors that make our guns quieter and then they ban outdoor shooting ranges because our guns are too loud. They ban steel-core ammunition because it's 'armor-piercing,' then they close down our indoor ranges where people shoot lead-core bullets because they say we might get lead poisoning. ... "If we sell one gun that's gone up in value, they can charge us with dealing firearms without a federal dealer's license, which is a felony. If we get a dealer's license, they say we are not really in business, and report us to our local authorities for violating zoning ordinances by running a commercial venture out of a residence. ... "Then, if they suspect we've ignored the $200 tax process, on the guns where the wood and steel is too long or too short, they'll spend over a million dollars watching us for months, then they'll shoot our wives and children or burn us all alive," for which no federal agent has ever spent a single night in jail. And this, mind you, in a nation with a Constitution which guarantees the federal government will never, in any way, "infringe" the right of the people to keep and bear military-style arms. # # # 2) With a lot less politics and a lot more pictures, my second selection this year is also a gun book, Timothy Mullin's "Testing the War Weapons," in which the author actually carries around and test fires virtually every surplus military long arm a modern American can lay hands on (and several we cannot -- who's going to buy (start ital)me(end ital) a Flapper-era, $3,500, fully-automatic Belgian FN-D?), from the widely-ridiculed Italian Carcano ("the JFK rifle"), to the grossly overrated German Gewehr 3. Based on his own quite sensible criteria, Mr. Mullin then fearlessly reports which of these guns actually prove far handier in the field than one might expect ... and which prove quite the opposite. It's a marvellous project well carried out, in which anyone interested in old (or not-so-old) military firearms is likely to find a few pleasant surprises - and probably something to argue with. One very big demerit to the editors at Paladin Press (P.O. Box 1307, Boulder, CO 80306) for the mediocre quality of the B&W photo reproductions in "Testing the War Weapons," and for the horrendous proofreading. But this is still a wonderful book, in 8X10 trade paperback at about $40. 3) No, our friends and relatives are not going to be reading only about guns this holiday season. Anyone interested in alternative medicine or the "War on Drugs" should be happy to receive Steve Kubby's heartfelt and (in the end) heartwarming book, "The Politics of Consciousness," from Loompanics Unlimited, P.O Box 1197, Port Townsend, Wash. 98368. Again, Mr. Kubby's work stands on the shoulders of such predecessors as Jack Herer ("The Emperor Wears No Clothes", Hemp Publishing, Van Nuys, Calif.), Terence McKenna ("The Archaic Revival," from Bantam Books, and "Food of the Gods," from HarperCollins), and Schultes & Hofmann ("Plants of the Gods," Healing Arts Press, Rochester, Vermont) which are widely cited here, and highly recommended (by me) in their own right. Mr. Kubby (this year's Libertarian candidate for governor of California, I believe) is one of those who has come to realize that the War on Drugs is not merely puritanism given the backing of armed government in violation of the First Amendment, but something much more insidious and evil yet: nothing less than the denial of the mental and spiritual health which mankind is meant to be allowed to achieve, through the direct religious experiences of the entheogenic (hallucinogenic) plants. Chapter headings like "The War on Freedom," "Criminalizing Nature," "Western Civilization is the Disease," "Molecular Theology," and "Downloading the Cosmic Design" give some idea of the delightful subversiveness of this 150-page, 8X10 paperback, with its psychedelic cover. But if you want to do some smug Drug Warrior's psyche more harm than would likely be accomplished by 250 micrograms of orange sunshine, simply get him or her to read the six-page chapter "Manna from Heaven." What (start ital)was(end ital) the bread that fell like rain from heaven in Exodus Chapter 16, verse 4? What (start ital)was(end ital) the "small round thing" that "lay as small as the hoar frost on the ground," which had to be eaten immediately in the morning, lest it "breed worms and stink"? What (start ital)was(end ital) the God-given substance which was so holy to the Israelites that they later placed the last of it in a golden pot in the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews, Chapter 9, verse 3)? Order up a bunch of Mr. Kubby's liberating book, and spread them around. # # # 4) Finally comes a book I firmly and fearlessly recommend, while I also feel obliged to place my readers' interests above any possible sensitivity of the author, and thus to offer an unusual caveat: Just as some patrons of the visual arts have found delight in the very refusal of such "primitives" as Grandma Moses to study the rules of perspective and photographic realism, celebrating on its own terms the resultant cross between "professional" painting and the decorative folk art of the quilted bedspread, so must I note that the novel "TEOTWAWKI -- The End of the World as We Know It," by James Wesley, Rawles (comma as written), soon to be released in trade paperback from Huntington House Publishing as "Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse," succeeds in a similar dimension between professional fiction and the delightfully naive tale-telling of children and the childlike. I got my copy - an 8X10 Internet download with a color-copied cover -- from Mike McNulty (author of the Academy Award-nominated video "Waco: The Rules of Engagement" -- which should be on this list even if it's not a book) and Bob Glass, publisher of the promising new magazine "The Partisan: Journal of the American Freedom Fighter" ($20 per year from P.O. Box 1085, Longmont, CO 80502) at this year's Soldier of Fortune Expo. Still hunting for the first good book to be based on the upcoming "Y2K" crisis, I dug in ... and discovered that Mr. Rawles has indeed put together a thoughtful, thought-provoking, and well-researched survival manual, indicating in highly pragmatic terms how folks might well prepare for social unrest or breakdown of our established economic, commercial and political order in years to come -- prepare not just to squat on some piece of dirt, mind you, but to actually maintain a civilized lifestyle. Then, Mr. Rawles opted to deck out this intriguing, useful research as a work of fiction so bad -- by any traditional measure -- as to cross the line on many occasions into unintentional knee-slapping hilarity. The good guys pray to Jesus before each militia foray, and resist dividing up the gear even of their dead comrades, since that would be "stealing." The bad guys are -- I think I've got this right -- homosexual communists who actually carry around copies of Mao's Little Red Book, and who get their nourishment by preserving the best body parts of the little human babies they murder in their travels. Eventually, Idaho is invaded (of course) by a gang of U.N. mercenaries out of Brussels, though of course they and their tank columns are eventually defeated by the ingenuity and just plain spunk of the outnumbered Patriot defenders. Subtlety? Ambiguity? Not here in God's country, pardner. This thing makes the movie "Red Dawn" (which I also love) look restrained. And yet, in the midst of the nonsense, Mr. Rawles really can write a quite moving, effective, and realistic scene, as when a lone patriot rifleman in a well-chosen position sacrifices himself to inflict dozens of casualties on an advancing enemy column, holding them up for most of a day. But I have given fair warning: Just as Mr. Churchill admitted democracy was a terrible system -- except when compared to all the alternatives -- so is TEOTWAWKI a jaw-droppingly lunkheaded piece of fiction ... behind which is hidden a quite useful book, the first useful working sketch of a "Y2K" scenario which I have yet discovered ... unless we count "Atlas Shrugged" or "A Canticle for Liebowitz" or "A Boy and His Dog," of course. Which we probably should. (Mr. Rawles also sells pre-1899 antique firearms, which can be purchased via mail order without federal controls, via Clearwater Trading Co., P.O. Box 642, Penn Valley, Calif. 95946 -- e-mail rawles(a)usa.net -- a fine fellow, surely.) Order one of his remaining self-published copies through the same Penn Valley address at about $28, or via Patriot Products, 6595 Odell Place, Suite G, Boulder CO 80301, or ask your local bookstore to locate a copy of the new Huntington House edition, "Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse" (ISBN 1-56384-155-X) from their wholesalers, or via the Huntington House toll free order line at 800-749-4009. And have a merry Christmas. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin(a)lvrj.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin(a)lvrj.com The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 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'

1 0

Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 15:34:35 -0800 > From: Todd Larason <jtl(a)molehill.org> > Subject: Re: Article V - an analysis (fwd) > On 981125, Jim Choate wrote: > > > > Why is this problematic? > > Whether it's problematic or not depends on your goals. It gives reason to > doubt that your interpretation of the effects of a Convention called under the > current constitution would hold, as (as you now say), such a Convention > has the power to change the rules by definition. How? Explain what part of Article V leaves this hole open. Explain the relevance of the operational proceedures used during the transition from the Articles to the current Constitution to the modification of the Constitution itself within the bounds of its own structure? Congress wasn't even involved in that original process because it didn't technicaly exist until after the ratification. Why would a precedence involving state legislatures be found to hold on a national legislature? There is also the issue that the Constitution once duly implimented is the supreme law of the land and it takes precedence over precedence. This is apples and oranges. Bottem line, if 3/4 of the states ratify there isn't anything that keeps it from being law. The most that Congress can say is whether it's a direct vote in the legislature or a vote by convention. > There was a time period (I don't know how long, but certainly no more than > a few months) where some states were operating underthe Constitution and > others were still under the Acts. Which is relevant how? > I don't think it specifies, but what has always happened is that the *same > resolution* which proposes the amendment specifies which ratification method > will be used. That can't work if the resolution comes from the states. Only Congress has the authority to decide that issue. So the only way a proposed amendment can be placed up for debate and at the same time specify how it is to be voted on at the state level is if it comes from Congress in the first place. A proposal submitted by the states would force the debate of how it was to be decided. Once that was settled it would be passed back to the appropriate state legislature for direct vote or the initiation of a convention if sufficient votes could be found. > There's only a time limit because Congress has started specifying one, in the > same resolution which proposes the amendment and specifies the ratification > method. (Exception: in the case of the ERA, I believe they later extended the > limit). The power to specify a time limit isn't mentioned in the Constitution > as you note, but has also never been tested. I assume your speaking of the prohibition amendments again and their limits (7 years I seem to remember). That raises an interesting point. Suppose that the states submit an amendment proposal, can Congress modify it? I'd say not because of the 10th. If they could then the power of the states to submit amendments would be moot. ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: How to reign the federal government in... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 25 Nov 1998 22:53:06 +0000 > From: "Douglas L. Peterson" <fnorky(a)chisp.net> > Subject: Re: How to reign the federal government in... > As per Article V, two thirds of the States can call a Convention to > propose Amendments. I believe this would be 33 of our current 50 states. > Territories and other holding would have no say in this. At this point, > if three fourths of the states agree to any proposed Amendments, it becomes > the law of the land. > > We only need two thirds of the States to start the process, but this > must be done by their Legislatures. Which is exactly what I said. The goal of the party would be to get proposed amendments on the floor each state legislature for vote. > > The IRS, for example, could be shut down tomorrow or significantly modified > > via this mechanism without involvement at the federal level. > > I assume this would be either by nullifying Amendment 15 or modifying it > to a great degree. Nothing else would work. That's the way I see it as well, which is the point after all. > > What is needed is a political party that has a representative site in each > > state capital. Their job is to get proposed amendments to the Constitution > > on the floor of each body for vote. > > Actually, it would not be to get the proposed amendments on the floor. You > would be putting the proposal for a Convention to amend the Constitution > on the floor. In addition, depending on the State, the party would likely > need to have a member elected to that States Legislature. Actualy it is. The Convention is only to create the amendment, the actual vote takes place in the state legislatures, not the convention. > That is why Article V was written as it was. It provides a backdoor to > keep the federal government from getting out of control. Absolutely. Now, let's kick the beggar in! ____________________________________________________________________ Technology cannot make us other than what we are. James P. Hogan The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1