December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: It had to happen... (fwd)
by Harry Shapiro 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

a conscious being, Jim choate wrote: > Assuming the arrest warrant was good not revealing the key to a duly > authorized court representative would be illegal (ie interfereing with a > police investigation). If the courts serve a warrant for your arrest and the > confiscation of data on your hard drive (and you refuse to turn the data over > even after talking w/ an attorney) is specificaly mentioned you are opening > yourself up for another whole world of legal hurt. I would like to hear what Duncan has to say, but... 1) He did give them the data, they just can't read it. (not his problem). LIke if I wrote some notes in French, I don't think I woudl be required to translate them. 2) Then their is the issue of 5th Admendment issues... /hawk

1 0

it had to happen......
by Brian D Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Bill Stewart writes; >Assuming the arrest warrant was good not revealing the key to a >duly authorized court representative would be illegal (ie >interfereing with a police investigation). If the courts serve a >warrant for your arrest and the confiscation of data on your hard >drive (and you refuse to turn the data over even after talking w/ >an attorney) is specificaly mentioned you are opening >yourself up for another whole world of legal hurt. >A citizen would have the legal right to refuse prior to talking w/ >an attorney but not after, at that point it becomes witholding >evidence. >If the process is legal there should be no reason a citizen can >refuse to turn over his private keys (I don't believe >self-incrimination holds here). Well no doubt they have his True_Name now. I'm curious as to why they are so adamant about trying to break the encryption? I get the impression they don't have much of a case. Don't forget kids to save those sniffer tracings, they could earn you valuable prizes! I won't even go into how dumb it is to try accessing a cracked system through a single cutout, kids don't try this at home ;) Brian Williams Extropian Cypherpatriot smarter than your average bear. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.3a iQCVAgUBLRn01tCcBnAsu2t1AQFSYwQAoQiqSmUmnl1CLOr94DF3V+4i274mGl+b kKyX8VU1FFFfY6jD8LC2EeMITFX0vJkuA29WxYEomUEa1WRlqt1z+wOahgpPaPzT ipyY0JF6xTOMSmTBnvsfEZWsJUHC4qTiNbQaONg5ooMic75bcnhWXTENfBFOlB50 E+f9M4GfPV0= =uGUA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Adolf the Nazi
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Isn't Detweiler a German name? Herr Adolf Detweiler.

1 0

Re: Merry Christmas, Cyberanarchists
by ub075＠freenet.victoria.bc.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Of course it can. Detweiler always posts from an12070(a)anon.penet.fi > >Incidently, all those replying to this thread thus far have sent mail >to an12070(a)anon.penet.fi and thus have compromised their anonymous IDs >because of the double blinding feature. Not always. If your anon ID has a password set, your message will just be returned to you, with an error message.. Assuming: 1. The person has an anon ID in the first place. 2. You have a password set on your anon ID. I don't really see why you wouldn't. -- Ryan Perkins - 1:340/13 | I feel that suicide jumpers see a glimpse of ub075(a)freenet.victoria.bc.ca | sanity as they throw themselves from the ledge. Ask for PGP 2.3 public key | That's why they scream all the way down. 8C5357 : 9F FF BA 93 54 D5 18 78 4B 1E DA GC E3 4E

1 0

(fwd) A safer, saner Detweiler
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk From: sburkart(a)cpp.PHA.PA.US (Stephen Burkart) Subject: A safer, saner Detweiler Organization: Critical Path Project Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1993 16:00:07 GMT Keywords: CRYPTOANARCHIST PROMOTERS of SODOMY Found: a (Philadelphia) City Paper review of Covert Culture Sourcebook, which closed out with: "Debating the "cutting", or rather "covert" edge, is beginning to seem as silly as labeling bands "alternative," since so much of it is becoming more and more chic. Still, it's not as if mainstream-king Jesse Helms (scapegoat for all ultra-conservatives that he is) will pick up this book and say, "Hmmm, maybe I _will_ subsribe to Future Sex...." (review written by Margit Detweiler, who is no doubt a tentacle.)

1 0

Re: anonymous video rental store
by peb＠PROCASE.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>it is illegal for video stores to disclose rental records anyway. I believe the law was passed quickly after a reporter obtained a list of videos rented by a Supreme Court nominee (or some other nomination that must be approved by congress). In the particular case, there was nothing that the most sensitive, politically correct, family-values-affirmin' [okay, that's enough] person would object to. But, congress passed a law within weeks, presumably because they didn't want their rentals scrutinized. I wonder whether the list of books checked out at public libraries is public information...[eh, nothing dicey there anyway, except Howl]. This shows how reactionary and patch-work oriented the legal system is. A Simple Way to Rent Anonymously, but not cheaply:: buy the tape for cash and then sell it when you are done. This could cost 60% of the retail price, but you get the tape for almost any length of time. Audio CDs are effectively "rented" in this way, with the 60% cost being average. Paul E. Baclace peb(a)procase.com

2 1

Re: picture signatures
by peb＠PROCASE.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There is no need to sign the picture itself: a secure time stamp would prove ownership of the oldest version of a picture: CryptoHashA(picture) --> H_i Then the timestamp service: CryptoHashB(H_i, H_j) --> H_receipt ; H_j is hash from another customer The H_receipt is published in a well-known place/time and is traceable to the picture. The actual scheme the Bellcore folks worked out is tree structured for efficiency reasons. An altered version of a photo would presumably have a different hash, but it would not have an earlier timestamp hash. Insofar as one could recognize that an image was incorporated into another altered image, misappropriated and stolen copyrights could be detected. Recognition is inherent in this process. This isn't very different from sound sampling: if the alteration completely obscures the orignal beyond recognition, then there isn't much of a case to prove theft. For a picture example, I could digitize a copyrighted image and use *only* it's color palette on one of my pictures (I haven't tried this yet, but it sounds like a good "empircal color theory"). BTW, Anyone have an email addr of the Bellcore folks who invented the secure timestamp system? I'd like to use the service if it is still operational. Paul E. Baclace peb(a)procase.com

1 0

mail-to-news gateway
by Eric Hollander 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've modified the gateway so that it is non-anon, for a few reasons: It seems that this makes it more general purpose. It seems that it will be less likely to be shut down this way (the soda administration is quite anti-cypherpunk; I actually got thrown off root there because I defended our archives). The other thing that I might do is have two options: Request-Post: alt.sex.sodomy.pseudospoofing.detweiler and Request-Anon-Post: alt.sex.sodomy.pseudospoofing.detweiler with the obvious meanings. Although to make it more consistent with the other header lines, it should be: Request-Posting: alt.sex.sodomy.pseudospoofing.detweiler I want to make these header lines as logically consistent as possible. What's the most logic format? Also, right now my remailer has a random time delay feature. The posting service does not have that feature, although if I implement anon posting, I will probably put it in for anon posting only. THIS IS AN EXPERIMENTAL SERVICE, SO PLEASE DO NOT SPREAD THE WORD, AND PLEASE CONFINE YOUR POSTINGS TO THE *.test GROUPS. IF PEOPLE START ABUSING IT, I WILL TURN IT OFF. Speaking of turning it off, the other feature I'm soon going to implement is a "prekill" file, so that certain people can be "86ed" from my remailers and posters. e

1 0

Re: It had to happen...
by Jim choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the period 72 hrs. max without seeing a judge or having charges filed? After that a Writ of Habeas Corpus is almost a formality (course I ain't no lawyer so what do I know about actuality...).

1 0

Re: Encryption and Self-Incrimination
by Jim choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > You wrote - > > > Consider this, > > > > in a criminal investigation you can be forced to allow access to safety > > deposit boxes and their contents, how is this any different? > > I think the key here is that there has to be some valid supposition > of a criminal act before this can happen. In other words, Officer > George G. Prick at local precinct house 5 can't simply compel you > to provide access to this type of material on a whim. Do you see > my point? > > -- Paul > I see it fully, unfortunately it isn't the point I am trying to make. What I am trying to ask is what happens when a officer tells a judge something like the following, Officer: "Your Honor, we stopped the suspect and he had cocaine and this computer in the car. We suspect he has drug trafficing related data on the drive. Our technical people have determined that the drive is encrypted." Judge: "Did the accused turn over the key when requested?" Officer: "No sir, he says that it would be self-incriminating." Judge: (this is the point at which I am addressing.) Exactly what can the judge do at this point? As I understand the situation right now there is no legal precidence that requires the suspect to turn over the key. However, since there is clearly evidence for suspicion the court has a responsibility to its office to gain access to that drive in any legal means possible. The courst is prohibited from 'forcing' the suspect to reveal the key thanks to the 5th. So the judge (to my admittedly laymen view) has only one thing to do, order the accused to turn the key over or go to jail for contempt of court. Hence, the suspect goes to jail for contempt and stays there until either the original judge decides it ain't worth further trouble or a higher court over rules the lower court and releases you (I wouldn't hold my breath for the latter to happen in most cases). In short you could spend years in jail without ever actually going to trial. The end result is the same, you spend years in jail (possibly).. In short having a the drive crypto does only one thing and that is protect you from the original charge (assuming all incriminating evidence exists only on the drive) it does not in any way protect you from spending time in jail. I fail to see how the court could do much else...So the conclusion that I come to is that the contents of the drive would have to merit a sentence more aggregious than a decade or two in jail.

1 0