December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: The American money capture
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Hal Finney & Eric Hughes >(Today, with our experiences of inflation in the 1970's and 1980's, it is hard >for us to appreciate the problems with deflation. But I think deflation was >much worse. The Great Depression was pretty clearly caused by deflation in the money supply. To quote Milton Friedman: "All told, from July 1929 to March 1933, the money stock in the United States fell by one-third [...]" Capitalism and Freedom, p. 50 .................................................... Would it be too complex and lengthy an explanation to provide to say how the money supply is decided in the first place; that is, how an appropriate amount of it is calculated initially? Is this in reference to the gold or other backing which gives each dollar its monetary value? Blanc

5 4

Re: Detweiler
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-> Frederic Halper says: > If Detweiler is a big nut. Why was he involved in the > implementation of MacPGP along with people like Atkins and Finney? He wasn't. He did do some testing. Perry <- Interesting, but not about politics.

1 0

Re: So, what are we going to do?
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-> "Jim Sewell" says: > A friend of mine that repaired computers said he ran across an > old disk drive that was used in WWII. There were no disk drives in WWII. There were barely computers. Hell, there was barely magnetic audio storage -- on steel wire! <- Stunning, but not about politics or cryptography.

1 0

Re: WSJ article on PGP
by pcw＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Phil Karn Wrote: > >> Anybody know if the WSJ accepts letters to the editor by fax or email? >> I've drafted the following letter to the editor, but I couldn't find >> anything but a snail mail address in today's paper. >> >> I *did* send a copy to Mr. Bulkeley's MCI mail address, so please >> do NOT forward it to him again...Phil > >What's his MCImail address? Perhaps some cypherpunks could share with >him their comments on the article, which have been posted to the list. >(Don't tell him where you got the article tho!) Editorial Page Fax number is: 212 416 2658 This is probably not Bulkely's number. I believe he works out of the Washington office.

1 0

Security Consult. Needed
by PMARKS＠VAX1.UMKC.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Concerning the following, Duncan Frissell makes an excellent point we should all consider seriously: **************************************************************************** One of the city's largest bookies was busted when the Feds intercepted the daily fax transmissions summarizing business results sent from his NY office to his Florida home. A major cocaine dealer is facing prosecution based on written transaction records seized at his office. His simple code was broken by a "known plaintext attack" when investigators were able to match his written notations with transaction information derived from wiretaps. Can't anyone help these people? Maybe 178th Street needs PGP and Secure Drive more than the PC Expo. **************************************************************************** You are absolutely correct! For too long, licensed Attourneys and Certified Public Accountants have been making comfortable careers representing clients from the, shall we say, "underworld." It is time for cryptographic experts to be recognized as the true professionals they are and proudly join the ranks of other professionals who represent thieves, extortionists, junkies, drug dealers, embezzelers, etc. Oh yes, I almost forgot. Once Clipper is the law of the land, Congressmen will no doubt want to keep their private files safe from the snooping eyes of their political enemies. So they will need crypto-consultants to find "creative ways" to work around the very regulations they stood by and permitted to go into effect. I can hear them rationalizing now, "that is an Executive Branch rule that the Legislative Branch is not bound by." Who will be laughing then?

2 1

Useful Ways to Fight Crime
by PMARKS＠VAX1.UMKC.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This gave me another warped idea: *********************************************************************** > Without e-mail encryption, widespread surveillance would be easier. In > theory, CIA, FBI and police computers could tap telephone cables and look > for key words such as "missile" or "bomb" to find people who needed closer > watching. Mr. Zimmermann says: "This is analogous to drift-net fishing." *********************************************************************** Why don't we just outlaw curtains and window blinds? That way, law enforcement officials could just drive down the street looking into windows! It would make it *much* easier for them to tell if crime was being committed. Of course, some people might not like the loss of privacy but the civil libertarians are making too much of this anyway. Besides, law abiding citizens should have nothing to hide, right? So why should they object? Oh, e-mail is differnt altogether? So. When did you start mailing all your letters in clear envelopes?

1 0

Update - Congressional Hearings on Clipper and Digital Telephony
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Update - Congressional Hearings on Clipper and Digital Telephony ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Congressional hearings on the Administration's Clipper/Skipjack initiative, and the FBI's draft Digital Telephony surveillance bill, and their implications for privacy and First Amendment rights, are to be held May 3, 1994. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), of the Senate Judiciary's Technology and the Law Subcommittee, has expressed skepticism of the Clipper encryption scheme, and has called for hearings to examine the problems of this proposal and its implementation. This effort is due in part to all of you who responded to EFF's grassroots campaign to raise fundamental questions about security and free speech issues in relation to the White House proposal. The Senate hearing will be held on May 3, 1994, 9:30am EDT, Hart Building Rm. 216, and should feature testimony from Trusted Information Systems' Steve Walker, Whitfield Diffie of Sun Microsystems, Asst. Atty. Gen. Jo Ann Harris (Justice Dept., Criminal Div.), NSA Director Adm. Mike McConnell, and Raymond G. Kammer, NIST Dep. Dir. For more information, contact Senate staffers at the Senate Judiciary Committee: +1 202 224 3406 (voice), +1 202 224 9516 (fax) Note: this is the full Committee's fax, so address faxes to "Technology and the Law Subcommittee" or delivery may be delayed. Following the Senate Hearings, the House Science, Space and Technology Subcommittee on Technology, Evironment and Aviation will be holding a hearing to address related civil liberties issues of both the Clipper scheme and the FBI "Digital Telephony" proposal, which so far remains unsponsored. The hearing will be chaired by Rep. Tim Valentine (D-NC), and is scheduled for May 3, 1994, 1pm EDT, Rayburn Building Rm. 2318. Witnesses will include Dep. Dir. Raymond G. Kammer of NIST, NSA's Dr. Clinton Brooks, representatives from industry in a panel that will include USTA and TIA, expert witnesses Dr. Dorothy Denning and Dr. David Farber, EFF's Jerry Berman on behalf of DPSWG, Chmn. Willis Ware of the Congress/NIST System Security and Privacy Advisory Board, and in a last moment change, the FBI will be represented after all, by James Kallstrom. The House hearing is being held "to review the Administration's policies and legislative proposals dealing with electronic survellance, privacy and security, ...the adequacy of the Computer Security Act in protecting goverment computer systems", and "the Administration's proposed Digital Telephony legislation and decision to promulgate a voluntary federal encryption standard". Futher information can be provided by the staff of the Subcommittee at +1 202 225 9662 (voice), +1 202 225 7815 (fax) Senate Technology and the Law Subcommittee Members ================================================== (Subcommittee of Judiciary Committee) Subcommittee phone: +1 202 224 9516 Subcommittee fax: +1 202 224 3406 NOTE: this is actually the Committee fax, so be sure to address it to the Subcommittee, or delivery may be delayed. p st name phone fax ___________________________________________________________________________ D VT Leahy, Patrick J. 1-202-224-4242 na Subcmte Chair R SD Pressler, Larry 1-202-224-5842 1-202-224-1630 D WI Kohl, Herbert H. 1-202-224-5653 1-202-224-9787 D CA Feinstein, Diane 1-202-224-3841 1-202-228-3954 R PA Specter, Arlen 1-202-224-4254 na House Technology, Environment & Aviation Subcommittee Members ============================================================= (Subcommittee of Science, Space and Technology Committee) Subcommittee phone: +1 202 225 9662 Subcommittee fax: +1 202 225 7815 p st name phone fax ___________________________________________________________________________ D NC Valentine, Tim 1-202-225-4531 1-202-225-1539 Subcmte Chair D KS Glickman, Daniel 1-202-225-6216 pvt D TX Geren, Peter 1-202-225-5071 1-202-225-2786 D IN Roemer, Timothy 1-202-225-3915 1-202-225-6798 D NH Swett, Richard N. 1-202-225-5206 1-202-225-0046 D NJ Klein, Herbert C. 1-202-225-5751 1-202-226-2273 D PA McHale, Paul 1-202-225-6411 1-202-225-5320 D CA Harman, Jane 1-202-225-8220 1-202-226-0684 D GA Johnson, Don 1-202-225-4101 1-202-226-1466 D AZ Coppersmith, Sam 1-202-225-2635 1-202-225-2607 D CA Eshoo, Anna G. 1-202-225-8104 pvt D WA Inslee, Jay 1-202-225-5816 1-202-226-1137 D TX Johnson, Eddie Bernice 1-202-225-8885 1-202-226-1477 D MN Minge, David 1-202-225-2331 pvt D GA Deal, Nathan 1-202-225-5211 1-202-225-8272 D CA Becerra, Xavier 1-202-225-6235 1-202-225-2202 D NJ Torricelli, Robert 1-202-224-5061 1-202-225-0843 D FL Bacchus, James 1-202-225-3671 1-202-225-9039 D WI Barca, Peter W. 1-202-225-3031 pvt D CA Brown Jr., George E. 1-202-225-6161 1-202-225-8671 ex officio R FL Lewis, Thomas 1-202-225-5792 1-202-225-1860 R MD Morella, Constance 1-202-225-5341 1-202-225-1389 R CA Calvert, Ken 1-202-225-1986 pvt R MI Smith, Nick 1-202-225-6276 pvt R MN Grams, Rod 1-202-225-2271 1-202-225-9802 R GA Linder, John 1-202-225-4272 1-202-226-4696 R MA Blute, Peter I. 1-202-225-6101 1-202-225-2217 R MD Bartlett, Roscoe G. 1-202-225-2721 1-202-225-2193 R CA Rohrabacher, Dana 1-202-225-2415 1-202-225-7067 R NJ Zimmer, Richard A. 1-202-225-5801 1-202-225-9181 R OH Hoke, Martin R. 1-202-225-5871 1-202-226-0994 R CA Royce, Ed 1-202-225-4111 1-202-226-0335 R PA Walker, Robert S. 1-202-225-2411 pvt -- Stanton McCandlish * mech(a)eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist "In a Time/CNN poll of 1,000 Americans conducted last week by Yankelovich Partners, two-thirds said it was more important to protect the privacy of phone calls than to preserve the ability of police to conduct wiretaps. When informed about the Clipper Chip, 80% said they opposed it." - Philip Elmer-Dewitt, "Who Should Keep the Keys", TIME, Mar. 14 1994

1 0

Re: the value of money
by jamiel＠sybase.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:55 PM 05/02/94 -0700, Hal wrote: >It appears that the Magic Money/Tacky Token experiment is not succeeding >in producing an informal digital currency. People have offered services >in exchange for this money but have had no takers. It may be that there >is not much demand for their services, and the lack of offers simply re- >flects that. OTOH it could be a money-supply problem: there may not be >enough Tacky Tokens "in circulation" to allow them to be used as money. For us relative newcomers- whatsa Tacky Token? >Hal

1 0

The Great Clipper Debate 5/9/94
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Great Clipper Debate: National Security or National Surveillance? Sponsored by: The Georgetown University Law Center Space Law Group and Communications Law Forum In Coordination with: The George Washington University Institute for Computer and Telecommunications Systems Policy, the Association for Computing Machinery Special Interest Group for Computers and Society, and the American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section. Date and Time: May 9, 1994, at 7:30 p.m. Place: The Georgetown University Law Center(Moot Court Room) 600 New Jersey Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. The Administration, through the Department of Justice and the National Security Agency, has proposed a standard encryption algorithm for both the public and commercial marketplace, with the goal of making this algorithm the method of choice for persons wishing to encode their telephone and other voice and data communications. The FBI and the NSA are concerned that the increasing availability, and affordability, of encryption mechanisms will make it difficult and in some cases impossible for law enforcement and intelligence agencies to tap into and to understand the communications of criminals and other pertinent groups. This proposal has become known as the "Clipper Chip," in that it would be implemented by the voluntary insertion of a computer chip into telephone, fax machine, and other communications systems. The Clipper Chip has generated considerable controversy. Opposing it are various civil libertarian groups, as well as telecommunications companies, software and hardware manufacturers, and trade associations. The debate has raged behind closed doors, and openly in the press. On Monday, May 9, at the Georgetown University Law School, a round table debate will take place on this controversy. The participants represent both sides of the issue, and are illustrative of the various groups which have taken a stand. The participants are: Dorothy Denning, Chairperson of the Computer Science Department of Georgetown University Michael Godwin, Legal Counsel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; Geoffrey Greiveldinger, Special Counsel to the Narcotic and Dangerous Drug Section of the U.S. Department of Justice; Michael Nelson, of the Office of Science and Technology Policy of the White House; Marc Rotenberg, Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center; and Stephen Walker, President of Trusted Information Systems, Inc., and a former cryptographer with the National Security Agency In addition, there will be two moderators: Dr. Lance Hoffman, Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at The George Washington University, and Andrew Grosso, a former federal prosecutor who is now an attorney in private practice in the District of Columbia. The program will last approximately two and one half hours, and will be divided into two parts. The first half will offer the panel the opportunity to respond to questions which have been submitted to the participants beforehand; the second will present the panel with questions from the audience. There is no charge for this program, and members of the public are encouraged to attend. Reservations are requested in advance, and should be directed to one of the following individuals: - C. Dianne Martin, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The George Washington University, Phillips Hall, Room 624-C, Washington, D.C. 20052; telephone: (202) 994-8238; E mail: diannem(a)seas.gwu.edu - Sherrill Klein, Staff Director, ABA Criminal Justice Section,1800 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; telephone: (202) 331-2624; fax: (202) 331-2220 - Francis L. Young, Young & Jatlow, 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20037; telephone: (202) 663-9080; fax: (202) 331-8001 Questions for the panelists should be submitted, in writing, to one of the moderators: - Lance Hoffman, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. 20052; fax: (202) 994-0227; E mail: ictsp(a)seas.gwu.edu - Andrew Grosso, 2300 N Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C., 20037; fax: (202) 663-9042; E mail: agrosso(a)acm.org PLEASE POST

1 0

RJR and the supression of research
by anon1df3＠nyx10.cs.du.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This may be a little bit off topic for the list, but because it deals with secrecy and information generated through research, I thought that maybe you might be interested. Late last night on CSPAN they rebroadcast a House sub-committee hearing from last Thursday on cigarettes. Two former RJR scientists testified about the work they had done, which strongly suggested that nicotine was highly addictive. As many of you might know, RJR management has always denied that anything in cigarette smoke is addictive. The two researchers testified that top RJR management had been informed about their work, and the picture they painted of the interactions between the science people and management makes it pretty clear that RJR management not only knew about the work, they understood and accepted it as well. The company's claims that nicotine is not addictive is sort of hard to swallow given the fact that they were conducting research which was intended to develop other analogue substances which would look like nicotine to the neural receptors in the brain, but which wouldn't put so much stress on the heart. Apparently, such substances were discovered, but the company elected not to pursue further research. This decision was made in the face of over 150,000 deaths each year due to smoking induced heart-attacks in the US alone. The reason I'm writing about this here, on the CP list, is that RJR suppressed the information. The research itself was conducted in a secretive manner (animals were moved into the buildings under the cover of darkness, visitors were not allowed in the facility, etc.). What's more, the scientists involved signed contracts which prevented them from disclosing their work to anyone outside of the company. Those contracts are not unusual in the corporate world, but the researchers claimed that it was highly unusual, unheard of even, for the company to bury the information permanently. According to the researchers, it is considered legitimate to withhold information temporarily, in order to establish a market ahead of competitors, or for other market based reasons. It is not considered to be legitimate to use the contracts to suppress research because the company doesn't like the results of it. After the lab was closed by RJR, the scientists made attempts to publish their work despite the contracts they had signed. In each instance, the journals and the scientists were threatened with law suits, and the journals pulled the plug on the articles. According to the testimony, the work done at RJR during this period (ending in the early 80's) was cutting edge stuff that didn't exist anywhere else. Because RJR suppressed it, other scientists didn't have the opportunity to follow up on it, and millions of people had less information at their disposal when they decided whether or not they ought to smoke. Apparently much of their work still has not been duplicated elsewhere. All of this underscores, I think, the importance of the work that's being done here, on the CP list. It's important for scientists, whistle blowers, or whoever, to be able to distribute information widely and anonymously. Who knows what might have happened if these researchers had had a copy of PGP and a network of remailers at their disposal?

2 1