December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Call setup without warrants?
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Everyone talks about the DTII Act's allowing the monitoring of 'call setup information' without a warrant. I can't seem to find where exactly in the text of the Act is this stated. All paragraphs about call setup information mention the requirement of 'court order or lawful authorization,' exactly as required for interception. These include Section 3a(1)-(4) defining the 'assistance requirements' of common carriers, as well as 3i(7), which defines 'call setup information': > (7) 'call set up information' shall mean the information > generated which identifies the origin and destination of a wire or > electronic communication placed to, or received by, the facility or > service that is the subject of a court order or lawful authorization, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > including information associated with any telecommunication system dialing > or calling features or services; In the EFF's section-wise analysis of the draft bill last month, there was no indication of any loopholes in the 'lawful authorization' bit. The only thing I noticed was the 'routability exceptions' in Section 3a(4) allowing monitoring at the common carrier's premises about which the EFF analysis said: > The exceptions to this "routability requirement" occur when a criminal or > intelligence emergency pre-empts the normal process of seeking an order, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > or when there is an attempt by the person committing an offense to thwart > interception by changing facilities. These types of situations are provided > for under current law. However, it seems clear that (a) this is exceptional and (b) it is equally applicable to *both* call setup as well as interception. What I want to know is whether I'm missing any basis *in the Act itself* for this assumption of CS information without authorization? If not, is there any other *specific* basis, such as that for the possible outlawing of encryption in the statement that "there is no constitutional guarantee to unbreakable crypto?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh "What is civilisation rishab(a)doe.ernet.in, rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in but a ribonucleic Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 hangover?" H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Another view of the CFP
by Jim Gillogly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is redistributed with the author's permission. Do a search on "Lytel" for some especially interesting stuff. Jim Gillogly Sterday, 8 Astron S.R. 1994, 17:30 ------- Forwarded Message Subject: CFP summary Lorrie Cranor's CFP94 Conference Review The following is my second annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference report. Last year I wrote a report on CFP93 for my advisor and friends and soon had requests to distribute it around the world (followed by rebuttals from half the EFF board). So this year I'll go ahead and grant permission for reposting in advance. If you do repost or if you have any comments or corrections, please let me know. I have tried my best to accurately quote people and get the spelling of speakers' names right. However, I have not had the opportunity to listen to a tape of the proceedings, double check with the speakers themselves, or even carefully edit this report, so there may be some (hopefully minor) errors. Anyway, here is the CFP94 conference as I experienced it. All unattributed opinions are my own. I flew into Chicago around noon on March 23 and took the train to the Palmer House Hilton, the conference hotel. I was impressed with the way the train stopped almost right at the hotel entrance -- until I realized that my room was almost directly above the train station. At CFP93 last year I was often tempted to skip a session, enjoy the sunshine, and walk along the bay. However, at CFP94, held in a high rise hotel in the middle of a maze of very tall buildings and elevated train tracks that prevented all but the most determined sun beams from making their way down to street level, this was not a temptation. I missed the morning pre-conference tutorials, but arrived in time to attend a three-hour afternoon tutorial session at the John Marshall Law School (a few blocks away from the conference hotel). The election tutorial I had planned on attending was canceled, so I went to a tutorial on cryptography instead. Despite the hot stuffy air in the room (as they wheeled in auxiliary air conditioners and draped air hoses around the room the people from Chicago kept explaining that it wasn't supposed to be 75 degrees in Chicago in March and that very tall buildings don't adapt well to temperature change), the cryptography tutorial was quite interesting and informative. Lawyer Mark Hellmann gave some good background information in his introduction, but Matt Blaze of AT&T Bell Labs stole the show with his presentation titled "Everything you need to know about cryptography in just 60 easy minutes." Blaze explained why cryptography is useful/necessary, how some popular cryptosystems work, some applications in which cryptography is used, and questions people should ask before using a cryptosystem. His conclusion was "Be realistic, but be paranoid." Douglas Engert of Argonne National Laboratory followed with a rather rushed and confusing explanation and demonstration of Kerberos, a "practical implementation of encryption." Conference chair George Trubow officially opened the single-track conference at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday morning. He announced some changes to the conference program and introduced John McMullen, scholarship chair. McMullen introduced the scholarship recipients (including myself) and noted that three-time scholarship winner Phiber Optik would not be in attendance because he is currently in jail. The keynote address, originally scheduled to be delivered by John Podesta, was delivered by David Lytel of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Lytel first spoke about the administration's plans for the National Information Infrastructure (NII), explaining that the white house was attempting to lead by example by accepting email correspondence (and maybe soon actually responding to it properly) and making white house publications available electronically. (Look for a "welcome to the white house" WWW server sometime soon. Information from the II task force is currently available via gopher from iitf.doc.gov.) Lytel then put himself in the line of fire by discussing the administration's encryption policy. He stated the goals of this policy as 1) to provide a higher baseline security for everyone and 2) to maintain the ability to do wiretaps. Notably, he stated: "There will be no restrictions on domestic use of encryption," and "If you don't think Clipper is secure, don't use it." Then the bombing began. In the following Q&A session, Lytel claimed ignorance on many points of the Clipper proposal, but did make some interesting claims. He stated that (here I've paraphrased): - Clipper will be a government procurement standard that agencies may choose to use in addition to other standards. - The establishment of a public key registration system for all public key cryptosystems is important (this has not been officially proposed). - Clipper-encrypted messages may be further encrypted with another cryptosystem. However, messages may not be encrypted before being encrypted with Clipper. - The public is more at risk from criminal activity (which Clipper may be able to prevent) than from government abuse of power. - Clipper was designed by the government for it's own use. But they wouldn't mind if it becomes popularized as a commercial product. - Clipper was only designed to catch "dumb criminals." - Clipper does not make it easier or harder for law enforcement to get permission to do a wire tap. After a short break, Lytel took the podium again as one of six panelists in a discussion of "The Information Superhighway: Politics and the Public Interest." The panelists generally agreed that the information superhighway should provide "universal access" and two-way communication. They all seemed to fear a future in which the information superhighway was simply a 500 channel cable television network in which two-way communication only occurred when consumers ordered products from the home shopping network. Jeff Chester of the Center for Media Education stressed the need for public activism to prevent the form and content of the information superhighway from being determined only by cable and telephone providers. In the following Q&A session the "information superhighway" was dubbed a bad metaphor ("The vice president's office is the department of metaphor control," quipped Lytel.), and subsequently used sparingly for the remainder of the conference. Thursday's lunch (all lunches and dinners were included in the price of admission) was the first of many really bad meals served at CFP. I requested vegetarian meals and winded up eating plate after plate of steamed squash. My meat-eating friends claimed not to enjoy their meals either. Fortunately the lunch speaker was much better than the lunch itself. David Flaherty, Canada's Information and Privacy Commissioner, explained what his job entails and gave some interesting examples of privacy cases he has worked on. The first panel discussion after lunch was titled "Is it Time for a U.S. Data Protection Agency?" The panelists agreed that with all the information currently being collected about people, it is time for the U.S. to institute an organization to help protect privacy. Currently, litigation is the only way to force compliance with the "patchwork" of privacy laws in the U.S. However, the panelists disagreed on what form a privacy protection organization should take. The most concrete proposal came from Khristina Zahorik, a congressional staffer who works for Senator Paul Simon. Simon recently introduced legislation to form a five-member independent privacy commission. Martin Abrams of TRW objected to the formation of a commission, but supported the formation of a "fair information office." Law professor Paul Schwartz then discussed the European draft directive on data protection and stated that once the Europeans approve this directive the U.S. will have difficulty doing business with Europe unless a U.S. data protection board is formed. In the next panel discussion, "Owning and Operating the NII: Who, How, and When?" Mark Rotenberg of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) played talk show host as he questioned four panelists. The panelists stressed the importance of universal access and privacy for the NII. Barbara Simons, chair of ACM's new public policy committee USACM, was particularly concerned that the NII would be viewed as an electronic democracy even though large segments of the U.S. population would be unlikely to have access to it. "I worry that when people talk about electronic democracy they might be serious," she said. She added that NII discussions are exposing all of the major problems with our society including poverty and poor education. Her comments were interrupted by a call to the podium phone, which turned out to be a wrong number. Jamie Love of the Taxpayer Assets Project pointed out problems that could occur if NII providers do not have flat rate fees. For example, listservers, which are often used as organizational and community-building tools, would not be able to exist unless somebody volunteered to pick up the tab. Somebody from the audience pointed out that throughout the day panelists had been opposing plans for carrying entertainment on the NII, despite the fact that most Americans want entertainment, especially shows like Beavis and Butthead. Love explained that the panelists were not opposing entertainment plans, just plans that only include entertainment. He noted, "I personally like to watch Beavis and Butthead." After the panel discussion, conference organizers scurried to hook up a teleconference with Senator Patrick Leahy, author of the 1986 Electronic Privacy Act. Jerry Berman acted as moderator, speaking to Leahy through the podium phone as audience members watched and listened to Leahy on a projection TV. The teleconference began with some technical difficulties during which the audience could see Leahy, but only Berman could hear him. Berman reported this problem to Leahy and then told the audience, "Senator Leahy may hold his speech up in front of his face." Once the technical difficulties had been worked out, Leahy discussed the NII and problems with the Clipper proposal. The final panel discussion of the day was titled, "Data Encryption: Who Holds the Keys?" The discussion began with a presentation from Professor George Davida, whose 1970s crypto research brought him some unwanted attention from the National Security Agency (NSA). Davida explained the importance of cryptography for both privacy and authentication. The Clipper proposal, he said, was a bad idea because it would attempt to escrow privacy. He pointed out that the bad guys have a lot of money to hire hackers to write encryption schemes for them that the government does not hold the keys to. Furthermore, he opposed the idea of the NSA being responsible for an encryption scheme that many people would use to guard their privacy. "Asking the NSA to guarantee privacy is kind of like asking Playboy to guard chastity belts," he explained. Next, Stewart Baker of the NSA took the podium to deliver an ultra-slick presentation on the "Seven Myths about Key Escrow Encryption." His main points (here paraphrased) were: - If you think key escrow encryption will create a "brave new world" of governmental intrusion, ask yourself how bad governmental intrusion is today. If won't be any worse with key escrow encryption. - If you think unreadable encryption is the key to our future liberty, you should be aware that the beneficiaries of unreadable encryption are going to be bad guys. - If you think key escrow encryption will never work because crooks won't use it if it's voluntary and therefore there must be a secret plan to make key escrow encryption mandatory, you're wrong. - If you think the government is interfering with the free market by forcing key escrow on the private sector, remember that nobody is forcing the private sector to use Clipper. - If you think the NSA is a spy agency and thus has no business worrying about domestic encryption policy, you should realize that the NSA also designs encryption technology for government use. David Banisar of CPSR followed Baker with more anti-Clipper arguments. Banisar pointed out that communication systems are designed to communicate, not to provide intelligence information. If we build communications systems as intelligence systems, we are treating everyone as a criminal, he said. He pointed out that there were about 14 million arrests in the U.S. in 1992, but only about 800 wire taps. The encryption panel was followed by the annual EFF awards reception and the conference banquet. (Incidentally, I can't complain about the EFF board the way I did last year because most board members were not present this year. Seriously, though, I have been much more impressed with the way EFF has been reaching out to its members this year.) During dinner (more squash) Ben Masel of NORML lectured my table on how to legally harvest marijuana. After dinner, the lights dimmed, choir music played, and Simon Davies walked through the banquet hall garbed in pontifical robes. The founder and Director General of Privacy International, Davies told the audience he would read from "The Book of Unix." Davies read a witty parable about privacy in the U.S. and then urged the audience to "get off their computer screens and start lobbying ordinary people." He said efforts like CPSR's anti-Clipper petition only reach people on the net, not the general public. Unless the public becomes aware of privacy problems, there will be no privacy in the U.S. within 15 years he stated. Following Davies' talk, conference participants went to Birds-of-a-Feather sessions, some of which ran until almost midnight. I stopped by a BOF for scholarship winners before attending a lively discussion on "Censorship of Computer-Generated Fictional Interactivity." The second day of the conference began at 9 a.m. Many participants had not gotten enough sleep the night before, and many skipped the first session on health information policy. Congressional staffer Bob Gellman discussed a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives that would provide for comprehensive rules for using health information, patient rights for access to and correction of their health information, and security of health data. He said the bill was important because health reform will increase the use of medical information. (The bill is available via gopher from cpsr.org. An OTA report on privacy of computerized medical information is available via FTP from ota.gov.) Janlori Goldman of the ACLU added that privacy has been an afterthought in health care reform proposals. All panelists agreed that if the privacy problem is not dealt with, patients will withhold important information from their doctors so that it does not appear in their medical records. In response to a question from the audience about the use of social security numbers as medical identification numbers, the panelists gave conflicting responses. Goldman opposed the use of the SSN for identification purposes because it is not a unique identifier and because it is already used for other purposes and thus easy to cross reference. However, Gellman argued that if a new identification number is introduced, it will soon have the same problems as the SSN. He said the SSN should be used, but there should be restrictions on its use. Lee Ledbetter of HDX added that most databases can do cross references based on telephone numbers. The panelists also discussed the problem of informed consent. Gellman explained that people often sign away privacy rights through informed consent because they think they have to, not because they really are informed or consenting. The next panel was titled, "Can Market Mechanisms Protect Consumer Privacy?" This discussion, which centered around whether privacy is a right or good, was probably most easily understood by the lawyers and economists (I am neither) in the audience. Of note, panelist Eli Noam suggested that consumers could reduce intrusion on their privacy by telemarketers if telemarketers could only reach them through personal 900 numbers. Mark Rotenberg explained that the real problem with caller ID is that the phone companies use it to sell rights to consumers. One audience member challenged a panelist's proposal that people should own the information about themselves asking, "Who owns your birthday -- you or your mother?" The lunch lecture was eloquently delivered by Phil Zimmermann, author of Pretty Good Privacy (PGP), a public key encryption tool. Zimmermann, who is being investigated for export control violations but has not been indicted, told the audience that the future of privacy in America is not hopeless. Referring to the Clipper proposal he said, "We live in a democracy here... we ought to be able to stop it." Zimmermann explained why he developed PGP and allows it to be distributed free of charge. He also spoke out against the fact that all public key cryptography patents are in the hands of one company (thus those who use PGP without licensing the cryptographic algorithm may be breaking the law). The next panel discussion focused on "Creating an Ethical Community in Cyberspace." Computer science professor Martin van Swaay began by explaining the importance of trust in a free society. "Freedom is not the absence of restraint, but the presence of self restraint," he stated. He said freedom is necessary to earn trust, and trust is necessary to give laws meaning. Philosophy professor Bruce Umbaugh then discussed anonymity and pseudonymity in cyberspace. He gave some examples of cases where pseudonymity is useful but anonymity is not and explained why anonymity is much more of a threat than pseudonymity. Steven Levy, author of Hackers, then discussed the hacker ethic and how it is helping to shape cyberspace. In response to a question, van Swaay said he reserves the right to ignore anonymous messages because, "If you have something real to say, why do you want to hide? And if you want to hide, it makes me wonder why." Most non-computer-scientists skipped the next panel discussion, "Standards for Certifying Computer Professionals." However, among computer scientists, the panel was quite controversial. Professor Donald Gotterbarn explained that both ACM and IEEE are considering licensing proposals. He discussed one proposal that would impose mandatory licensing on computer professionals. The proposal called for various levels of licensing, based on skill and areas of competence. Attorney Steve Barber explained some of the problems with a licensing model, including the fact that licensing is usually handled by the states and thus varies from state to state. John Marciniak of CTA Inc. stated that the computer industry does not need licensing because the companies, not the programmers, stand behind their products. He suggested that a voluntary certification program be considered instead. Another panelist (whose name was not in the program) insisted that "when a B777 [a plane with completely computerized controls] goes down, we will have licensing." He suggested that computer professionals come to a consensus about what kind of licensing they want so that they can tell congress when congress demands licensing. Gotterbarn urged people interested in working on a licensing proposal to contact him at d.gotterbarn(a)computer.org. The final panel of the day, "Hackers and Crackers: Using and Abusing the Networks," was led by Emmanuel Goldstein, publisher of 2600 magazine. Goldstein hung a sign reading "hackers" on the table where the four other panelists sat. He hung a sign reading "crackers" on an empty table at the opposite side of the podium. "One thing that distinguishes hackers from crackers is that hackers are here and crackers are not," said Goldstein. After rattling off several other differences he looked under the empty table and retrieved three boxes of crackers (the edible kind). "Alright I stand corrected," he quipped. As Goldstein spoke admiringly about hackers and their quest for knowledge, several audience members were mumbling that they didn't understand. Goldstein then unveiled a large photograph of hacker Phiber Optik and played a taped message that Phiber recorded from prison. Panelist Bruce Fancher of Mindvox said he used to think there was no problem with breaking into other peoples' computer systems. "I think my opinion changed when I started running a public access Internet site....[I discovered that a breakin] wasn't that charming." He encouraged hackers to explore and learn about computer systems, but urged them not to break into other peoples' systems. Panelist Robert Steele described hacking as "elegance." He explained, "Hacking is doing it better than it has ever been done before," no matter what "it" is. He added that hackers should not be blamed for breaking into systems because most systems are wide open to attack. "Ethics is nice. Engineering is better," he stated. Panelist Bob Strantton of UUNET discussed the need for an electronic "place" people can go to learn things without disrupting the work of others. During the Q&A session Goldstein illustrated how unsecure computer and telecommunication systems are by picking up a cellular phone call on a hand-held scanner, much to the amazement of some audience members. The day's program concluded with a dinner reception at Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry. The food was tasty (finally a decent meal) and the museum exhibits were both educational and enjoyable. The final day of the conference began with a 9 a.m. panel on "The Role of Libraries on the Information Superhighway." Carl Kadie, editor of Computers and Academic Freedom News, described several cases in which he had turned to library policies when recommending solutions to computers and academic freedom problems. Kadie explained that libraries have adopted policies that protect free speech and free access to information. Next Bernard Margolis, director of Pikes Peak Library District discussed the roles of libraries on the information superhighway, describing libraries as on ramps, filling stations, and driver training schools. He also noted that as electronic resources have been added to the Pikes Peak libraries, the demand for traditional resources has not decreased. Elaine Albright of the University of Maine library described some of the issues related to electronic information delivery currently being discussed by librarians. A pamphlet discussing these issues is available from the American Library Association by contacting u58552(a)uicvm.uic.edu. The next panel, "International Governance of Cyberspace: New Wine in Old Bottles -- Or is it Time for New Bottles?" was another discussion for the lawyers in attendance. I got lost in the legal jargon as panelist discussed whether cyberspace has sovereignty and what sort of laws could be practically enforced there. Panelist Herbert Burkett described the net as "the greatest threat to national sovereignty since the opening of the first McDonalds in Paris." In the Q&A period, cypherpunk Eric Hughes put the whole conversation in perspective (for me at least) when, referring to people who use cryptography to hide their identities, he asked "How is national sovereignty going to have any effect if you can't find us?" The final conference lunch featured more squash and short presentations from three of the student paper competition winners (the fourth winner, a student from the computers and society course I taught last semester, was not able to attend the conference). The first panel after lunch discussed "The Electronic Republic: Delivery of Government Services over the Information Superhighway." This was an interesting, but relatively low bandwidth session about how governments can use information technology to collect and disseminate information. Panelists from information "kiosk" vendors had nothing but praise for pilot projects in several states. However, Jeff Arnold of the Cook County circuit court raised a number of concerns about allowing the public to access computerized court records. In particular he was concerned about people who want to use court records to generate advertising mailing lists (a list of recent divorcees or traffic offenders for example) and liability for incorrect information. The next panel, "Education and NREN, K-12" was quite interesting, but not well attended. (By this time most conference participants were networking in the hallway outside the main conference room.) The panelists generally agreed that most schools are organized in a way that is not reflected in the organization of the Internet. Panelist Steve Hodas explained that schools are usually organized into tidy departments and that information flows mostly in one direction (from book to student). In addition schools generally regard the absence of censorship as a system failure. The Internet, on the other hand, is not tidy, allows a two-way flow of information, and views censorship as a system failure. Hodas warned, as people rush in to protect schools from the net, "we must remember to protect the net from the schools." Panelist Philip Agre added, "American democracy is suffering, in part because of educational practices." Janet Murray, a school librarian, gave a humorous presentation in which she emphasized the importance of freedom of access to information. "If you're worried about what students can access on the Internet, think about what else they have access to," she said as she displayed slides of racy material found in popular news publications. The final CFP94 session was titled "Guarding the Digital Persona." The panelists first discussed the problem of too much personal information finding its way into the hands of direct marketers. Possible solutions discussed included requiring yellow-page style advertising and creating a new legal fiction -- an electronic person with the right to own money, communicate electronically, and not be arbitrarily deleted. The legal fiction suggestion was motivated by the idea that it would be impossible to create useful profiles of people if all the information about them was compartmentalized and each compartment had a separate identity. This idea seemed to be bordering on science fiction, and thus the final speaker, science fiction writer Bruce Sterling, seemed an appropriate choice to bat cleanup. I had considered writing an abstract for this lengthy report, but I don't think I could do as good a job as Sterling did in his remarks. I have read some of Sterling's books, but this was the first time I have heard him speak. I must say, the man can speak as well as he writes, and he writes pretty darned well. Sterling began his talk by stating his general lack of concern about privacy. "Being afraid of monolithic organizations, especially when they have computers, is like being afraid of really big gorillas, especially when they are on fire," he explained. "How can privacy abuses be kept a secret?" He then proceeded to describe what he will remember about CFP94. He characterized this conference (the fourth CFP) as "the darkest CFP by far." Referring to the administration's proposed encryption policy he stated, "I see nothing but confrontation ahead." Sterling reminded the audience of David Lytel's unsettling key note address ("Who was briefing that guy?") and Stewart Baker and the seven myths that the NSA wants you to believe are not true ("a tone of intolerable arrogance"). And he mentioned Dorothy Denning, one of the few Clipper supporters in the computer science community. Denning was not in attendance this year, but she was worth mentioning because she was certainly present in spirit. Read the talk yourself if you see it posted on the net. I think Sterling identified what was on the minds of most conference attendees. While some attendees were extremely concerned about their privacy, most had never really considered that they had anything to hide, or even anything that anyone else really wanted to know. And yet, almost everyone was bothered by the Clipper proposal and the fact that it would treat them as if they had something to hide. Last year's conference was much more animated and controversial. People were constantly complaining that there wasn't enough time for all views to be heard. This year there was much more harmony; but it was a dark harmony. The disagreements among panelists seemed relatively insignificant when compared to the disagreement between the people and their government. Epilogue: As I rode the train out to the airport, I noticed an advertisement for the Chicago Sun-Times "Social Security Sweepstakes." It seems the Sun-Times is asking people to send in their names and social security numbers for a chance to win a trip to Hawaii. Is this informed consent? -- Lorrie Faith Cranor March 27, 1994 /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Lorrie Faith Cranor Engineering and Policy, Computer Science Washington University http://dworkin.wustl.edu/pub/lorracks/home.html 1 Brookings Dr Box 1045 St. Louis, MO 63130 "UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, lorracks(a)cs.wustl.edu nothing is going to get better. It's not." -Dr.Seuss \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Anti-Clipper Resolution (fwd)
by sonny＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought this was interesting. >James< Begin forwarded message: > From netcom.com!netcomsv!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!news.uh.edu!nuchat!cld9!alaric Tue Mar 29 17:30:26 1994 > Xref: netcom.com alt.privacy:13504 > Newsgroups: alt.privacy > Subject: Anti-Clipper Resolution > From: alaric(a)cld9.com (Alaric) > Path: netcom.com!netcomsv!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!news.uh.edu!nuchat!cld9!alaric > Distribution: world > Message-ID: <7.7096.1006.0N5DB0C2(a)cld9.com> > Date: Fri, 25 Mar 94 22:13:00 -0600 > Organization: C-9 Communications > Lines: 22 > > Today in Houston at the District 6 State Senatorial Convention of the > Democratic Party of Texas, as an initial step in the formation of the > platform of the Democratic Party, a resolution was passed taking a stand > against the program of a thousand names - Clipper Chip/Skipjack/Digital > telephony bill. > The journey of a thousand miles begins under your feet. If all > Libertarians, democrats, republicans and independents who oppose the > Clipper chip will take a step this thing can be beaten. At the state > convention, a Harris county resolution carries a lot of weight > (registered voters). In the national convention a Texas resolution will > carry a lot of weight (electoral college votes). Do more than send an > e-mail, call your precinct captain and your congresscritters, send 'em > a snail mail. > I'm a bit euphoric seeing something happen against this chip. I've seen > the power of the people in action. Whoa, I'm getting a bit carried > away. I'll be my same cynical self tomorrow, but I still hope each of > you takes another step against the Clipper chip. > > Alaric(a)archives.cld9.com > --- > * OLX 2.1 * Paranoid? Sure, but that alone doesn't make me wrong! > .............................................................................................................................. * Synchronet * Archives BBS 1-713-896-1721 reply to: <user>@arch.cld9.com >

1 0

radio security through obscurity
by Tom Keenan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to the 2 dozen or so people who gave me interviews at CFP94. As I mentioned the primary purpose of them is for a CBC Radio segment to be aired on "Sunday Morning" (which many NPR stations carry.) I think I told you that it would air on Easter Sunday but I now realize the show is pre-empted so it will be some other Sunday. i will put the exact time in the list when I have it. As for TV coverage I am going to do an open-line phone in show on CFP related things on CBC's NEWSWORLD network. The airdate for that is (live of course) 1230-1300 MST (and local equivalent) Thursday April 7/94. Would love to have some intelligent phone calls. The 1-800 number (not sure what it is offhand) is Canada only but somehow I don't think that will be much of a barrier! Cheers, Tom -- Dr. Tom Keenan, I.S.P. Dean, Faculty of Continuing Education University of Calgary 2500 University Dr. NW Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 CANADA Voice: (403) 220-5429 FAX: (403) BUG-EXIT = 284-3948

1 0

Cerf calls for "international cryptography standard"
by Eli Brandt 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: E-d-u-p-a-g-e 03/29/94 > INTERNET STILL VULNERABLE > Testimony at a House Subcommittee on Science indicates that threats to > Internet security should be viewed as on-going rather than isolated events. > Internet Society President Vinton Cerf says that development and use of an > international encryption standard is the only reliable solution to the > problem. (Chronicle of Higher Education 3/30/94 A22) He's right, but I'd like to think he doesn't have Clipper/Capstone in mind. Oh, I'll throw this in too: > SOFTWARE REPLACES SPORTSWRITERS > A $100 software program called Sportswriter is capable of churning out > reasonably good sports copy by intelligently stringing together words > between facts. Some 80 small newspapers in the Midwest have purchased the > program and are using it to cover high school sports events. (Wall Street > Journal 3/29/94 A1) Eli ebrandt(a)hmc.edu finger for PGP key.

2 1

questions for the NRC crypto committee...
by Herb Lin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The NRC crypto study is a study of national cryptography policy intended to lay down a framework for the long term; this study was ordered by the U.S. Congress and will be launched this summer (we hope). It is not focused on any particular technology such as Clipper, Skipjack, or Tessera, though the study committee will be addressing these and other technologies as necessary. Thus, it is different from the review committee charged with examining Clipper. Indeed, the composition of the NRC study committee has not been determined at this time. This committee will still be soliciting input from the community, and the offer I made earlier stands -- If you (and other cypherpunks) have questions you think the NRC committee should be asking regarding the formulation of crypto policy, please forward them to me. tnx herb lin Computer Science and Telecommunications Board National Research Council National Academy of Sciences *** Bellovin writes: A useful exercise for this group might be to compile a list of questio ns that they *should* answer if they're playing it straight. These could be forwarded to the review committee, too. If we come up with a good list, I'm willing to submit it to them. **** As the guy staffing the NRC's review project of national cryptography policy, I encourage you (and other cypherpunks) to do so. Please forward to me the questions you think the review panel should be asking. So that your q uestions stand out, please put in the subject line: Crypto panel question thanks.. herb lin Do you want to collect the questions or should I? I volunteered because I know 3 of the 5 committee members.

1 0

Stanford,CA Clipper debate Wed 30Mar: Rotenberg vs. Asst US Atty
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry for the late notice; I just found out today: ... I saw this notice at the law school yesterday ... "Encryption and digital communications: law enforcement or privcacy? An Oxford-style depate with J. Kent Walker, Assistant US Attorney and Coordinator, high-tech task force; and Marc Rotenberg, Wash. Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibiltiy Wed. March 30 at 5:30 Stanford Law school room 290

1 0

Re: the rest of the key
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I was just wondering.... If the NSA could get it's hands on half >(40) of any particular clipper key, wouldn't that just leave 2^40 >to compute? Even with brute force, it's trivial even next to DES. "half" is a a random number which is XOR'd with 80 bits. Both halves look random. The XOR of the two halves is not. Oh yes, and the guy who is asking the spooks about the technical stuff - be sure to find out where this 80-bit random number comes from and where it goes when it's been used... Anyone who knows the split-pattern only needs to subvert *one* of the escrow agencies. G

1 0

Quantum Physics
by W. Kinney 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate is making a lot of strange statements, but I'm picking this one: > First off, EM fields are NOT QM. Sure they are, in Quantum Electrodynamics, which is the quantum-mechanical theory of electromagnetism. > They do have some characteristics which > 'bleed' over form the Quark level. Quarks have nothing whatsoever to do with electromagnetic fields, except that they carry charge. >Also since EM fields are made of > hardons [sic ;-)] No. Protons and neutrons are hadrons. Hadron comes from the (Greek?) word for "heavy", lepton from "light". The distinction you're trying to make here is that matter fields are _fermions_, with spins an integral multiple of 1/2, and gauge fields (like photons) are bosons, with integral spin. Both hadrons and leptons are fermions. >and not leptons (which an electron is) may blow a hole in this > approach since leptons do not follow the same sort of charge conservation > rules as hadrons. Charge conservation applies to everybody. Hadrons, leptons, everybody. Even your mother. Perhaps you're thinking of the fact that bosons and fermions obey different spin-statistics rules. > > As to infinite precision and its non-presence....Beeep....wrong answer... > > Electrons change state in zero time, this implies at least some form o f > infinite precision (otherwise how does the system know the difference between > zero and some small-o value?). I suspect this is another error based on > the implied (and incorrect) implication in this line of discussion that > hadrons and leptons use the same rules. What? Not that this is the appropriate list for particle physics, but this kind of semi-mystical expounding on how quantum mechanics forces you to rethink all the rules is better science fiction than science. QM _does_ include some spooky things, but by and large they are subtle and limited -- for instance, the "faster than light communication" implied by spin-polarization measurements cannot be used to transmit information. It's a purely statistical effect, and it does _not_ violate relativity. Nothing I've ever heard of in QM invalidates assumptions one might make about computability or the properties Turing machines. Stuff like Roger Penrose comes up with in _The Emperor's New Mind_ is speculation, and he clearly labeled it as such in his book. Don't take it too seriously. -- Will

1 0

Re: Crypto and new computing strategies
by Peter Wayner 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Analog computers have very different behaviors than digital computers. I believe that it is possible to find the longest path in a graph merely by building a string model of it which takes O(n) time. This is rusty. Some guys have also build an analog machine that can solve 3SAT problems in linear time. They surmise, though, that the machine must be built with precision that is exponential in the number of terms. I.e. it won't work. I would assume that any QM machines will _not_ be exclusively digital. This is the easiest programming model, but someone may come up with a better one. -Peter

2 1