December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Privacy at Dunkin Donuts
by Lile.Elam＠Eng.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wow, this is good to know... -lile ---------------------------------- : Date: Thu, 26 May 1994 20:28:22 -0400 : From: dartvax!coos.dartmouth.edu!mozart (Sting) : Subject: P: Scary... : : This is pretty scary, I think...I had to read it twice before I could accept : that it wasn't a joke... : : CONCORD, N.H. (AP) -- At some Dunkin' Donuts, the walls have : ears. : So the next time you settle down over coffee and a cruller to : trade gossip with a friend, keep in mind that hidden microphones : may be recording the dirt you dish. : Manager Tony Wright insists he's not being nosy. It's just : another way to increase security and keep employees on their toes, : he said. He would never listen to customer conversations, he said. : ``Do you think I would waste my time?'' said Wright, who manages : five Dunkin' Donuts in Concord. : Use of concealed recorders is widespread at fast-food : restaurants, convenience stores and other businesses, according to : one company that sells them. : But unlike anti-shoplifting mirrors and surveillance cameras : seen throughout retail America these days, hidden microphones are : news to most of the public, judging from interviews Thursday at two : microphone-equipped Dunkin' Donuts in New Hampshire's capital. : ``Knowing this, I would never have a conversation in here,'' : said customer Frank Bowser, a private investigator who was : discussing a case with a partner. ``I think the general public : would be in an uproar to know that every time they come in for a : cup of coffee and a doughnut they could be heard.'' : Other customers, including Nick and Thalia Hondrogen, said they : were more offended by cigarette smoke than listening devices. : Nonetheless, they were surprised. : ``It's like spying. It sounds like Nazism or the KGB. It's not : American,'' Hondrogen said. ``Many times you say things to close : friends you don't want overheard.'' : The systems also were news -- unwelcome, at that -- at Dunkin' : Donuts corporate headquarters in Randolph, Mass. : Any system powerful enough to record customers' conversations : would be ``highly inappropriate'' and a violation of company : policy, spokesman Bill Chiccarelli said. : Still, store owners are using them. Security systems dealer Jeff : Meuse told the Concord Monitor he has installed systems in 500 : Dunkin' Donuts in Massachusetts in the last five years; of those, : 300 had audio monitoring. : Shops that have the monitoring systems display small stickers on : their doors saying, ``Audio monitoring on the premises.'' : All but the loudest customers are safe with many systems. At one : Dunkin' Donuts, Wright demonstrated that a customer standing at the : counter below the single mike in the ceiling had to speak loudly : and distinctly to be heard above the din of coffee grinders, staff : and general restaurant noise. : The systems can be far more sophisticated, however. Lewis Weiss, : chief executive officer of Louroe Electronics Inc. of Van Nuys, : Calif., said his company's systems can pick up conversations within : 30 feet. : ``Unfortunately, this is going to be the future until we get to : the point where there is minimal crime in this country,'' Weiss : said. ``Until then, store owners are going to have to have these : devices to protect their employees and their customers.'' : The American Civil Liberties Union grudgingly accepts : surveillance cameras and audio equipment at store and restaurant : cash registers, providing customers and staff are notified. : ``We would prefer not to see them at all, but if and when it : does happen, we would strongly (want) there to be actual and : functional notification,'' ACLU spokesman Milind Shah said in New : York. ``Often a sign on the door is not enough.'' : Federal law requires stores to post signs informing customers : they might be monitored, and customers should take notice, Weiss : said. : ``There is no invasion of privacy in a public store like a : Circle K or a Dunkin' Donuts because you can't carry on a private : conversation there,'' he said. : ----- End Included Message -----

1 0

PGP 2.6
by nobody＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Paul "K." Strong <pauls(a)dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk> wrote: >However, I would say that most people _regard_ v2.3a as a legal version >outside the USA and so are willing to carry it on their systems; and at >this time I believe nothing concrete to the contrary has been proved. > >Versions 2.5 and 2.6 however are obviously illegal exports, and I think that >it is the fact that people think of one as legal and the other as illegal >that makes the difference, and therefore we who are outside the USA need our >own version to be brought up to date. There has never been a ruling declaring it illegal to export PGP. No one has ever been convicted of illegally exporting crypto. The ITAR restrictions also contain many exemptions, under which it could be legal to export PGP. Furthermore, If you didn't get your copy of PGP from the US then you haven't broken any laws. >I have, at this time, been informed of two separate people working on a new >version that is compatible with 2.6, based on 2.3a code. To what effect? >Maybe everyone working on (or who know of people working on) such >developments could post information regarding what exactly they are >changing/upgrading/doing to 2.3a to make an 'international' v2.6. Or maybe you could just keep on using PGP 2.3a and stop worrying about it. >All of those inside the USA, *PLEASE* get involved with this. It _is_ >important! Why? Just because PGP 2.6 exists, doesn't mean you have to use it! If people want to communicate with you, they will use 2.3a also...or fix their damn software. It's their problem, not ours, so let's make it their problem! Boycott MIT-PGP.

2 1

Unicorn vs. tmp@netcom
by Cyber City 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Recently Black Unicorn posted that he had sued tmp@netcom, and settled out of court. A couple of messages followed which were supportive of his action. The text below is a rebuke to Unicorn. I post it in the hope that it will provide dimension to the debate. To Black Unicorn: Once upon a time, two strangers found a dog. Alice said, "That's my dog: I can clearly tell by its markings". Bob said, "No, I'm afraid you're mistaken. See his ears pick up when I call his name". And so the debate continued, until a third person, Sol, arrived. On hearing the pleadings of Bob and Alice, Sol told them, "Stand 10 meters apart and put the dog between you". Sol the scared the dog with a quick movement and a shout, and the dog ran to its true master. Likewise, when you were tested recently by net abuse, you went for relief to your master, the government. This is what distinguishes you from the rest of us. We might react against the abuse (or we might not), but I think that none of us - or at least a very few - would have gone to court for relief. "I spoke to a Federal Court of Appeals Judge who I have known for a number of years to try and poke some holes in the suit on substantive merits." Despite your protestation, "I also don't like to be a bully", it seems to me that your pursuit of this case was predicated on your ability to be a bully and an insider. Like your colleagues Cantor and Seigel, you emitted flamebait and then pretended offense at the inevitable flames. You taunted tmp@netcom about his illness, reminding him at least three times in one message to take his medicine. Nice behaviour for a person who supposedly believes in privacy. It seems to me that you sized up tmp@netcom as a person who could not fight back due to his illness, and then you provoked him in order to establish grounds for your suit. I believe that your case, which is apparently based upon testimony from your friends, could not have succeeded in court. But it didn't have to, did it? You only had to find someone who was ill, and then kick him while he was down. Was it Rousseau who said, "First, we kill all the lawyers"? The cost of a lawsuit in the U.S. today can easily be over $100,000. The cost of a contract murder is said to be $10,000-$50,000. Consider the economics. I think there is a role to be played by lawyers in the future of the net. The net does not like litigation, because it interferes with the free flow of information. But it does like protocols, which are seen to enhance the flow of information. Lawyers, by their training and practice, are especially good at formulating workable protocols. If we had a protocol governing the use of network resources by sick or abusive users, your conflict with tmp@netcom might not have transpired, or else a solution might have been easily achieved. Conflicts like this are resulting in conversion of newsgroups on Usenet to moderated groups - a very unfortunate trend in my opinion, as Usenet does not provide for the removal of moderators. Here is a proper outlet for legal talent, not in self-serving time-wasting resource-absorbing litigation. -- Alex Brock

7 6

(fwd) Re: NSA Helped Yeltsin Foil 1991 Coup
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An interesting article by Seymour Hersh is cited below. It says that NSA had transcripts of the 1991 coup plotters (and presumably other Russian leaders) and that Bush passed these on to Yeltsin to warn him. If true, a serious compromise of NSA's listening capabilities. Also note the reference to how the coup plotters should've been using PGP. (Prediction: something along these lines will be added to the list of reasons why PGP is bad and Clipper is good..."We need to have Escrowed Coup Plotter Encryption so that we can examine the messages of coup plotters.") --Tim May From: guym@gamma1 (Guy MacArthur) Newsgroups: alt.cyberpunk Subject: Re: NSA Helped Yeltsin Foil 1991 Coup Date: 20 May 1994 01:45:54 GMT Organization: University of Arizona, CCIT Lines: 47 Distribution: world Message-ID: <2rh4oi$p2s(a)news.CCIT.Arizona.EDU> ben(a)il.us.swissbank.com (Ben Galewsky) writes: : There is an article on the front page of today's "Independent", a British : daily newspaper. The headline is "US Agents Helped Yeltsin Break Coup". : : It describes how Bush passed on transcripts of encrypted conversations : between the leaders of 1991's failed Soviet coup to Boris Yeltsin. : Apparently the NSA was not too happy that Bush broke their cover and : acknowledged that they could read all of the Soviet military's codes. : : The article reads: : "As soon as the coup started on 18 August, 1991, the NSA, : America's largest intelligence organization was able to decrypt : conversations between the coup's two leaders, Vladimir Kryuchkov, : chairman of the KGB, and Dmitri Yazov, the Defense minister, : taking place over a supposedly secure landline." : : It continues: : "The NSA's ability to decrypt what Soviet military commanders : -- and their successors -- said over their communications system : is probably the most significant intelligence achievement since : Britain broke Germany's Enigma codes during the second world : war." : : Bush decided to pass this info on to Yeltsin. It enabled him to know who : in the military supported the coup and who was against it. : : It finishes by saying that as a result of letting the russians know their : code has been broken "the US intelligence community may no longer be in a : position to have advance warning of momentous events inside Russia -- as : it had months before the coup that brought Yeltsin to power". : : This information came from Seymour Hersh. It will appear in a forthcoming : issue of "Atlantic Monthly" : : I guess the KGB should have been using something secure, like PGP, since : the NSA can't possibly break that ;-) : : At least we can be comforted that the NSA is not allowed to monitor the : domestic traffic. ;-) ;-) : : : Ben Galewsky : ----------------------------------------------------------- : My employer doesn't know I read this group. : They do know I'm posting, though. "Hi Neil!" : ----------------------------------------------------------- :

7 14

CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups (3/3)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 16:53:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: Jonah Seiger <jseiger(a)cdt.org> Cc: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu, chris_barr(a)cnet.com Subject: Re: CDT, RSACi, and "public service" groups Jonah, Thanks for responding. The "yet to be determined category" CDT suggested during that conversation with RSAC is of course the same "public service site" category I mentioned in my previous post. I'm still curious to know what exactly was discussed and what was proposed during that July 10 conference call, which happened a few minutes after I had lunch with RSAC's Stephen Balkam. Can you fill us in? Though to be fair, I should say Balkam told me the following week that the "public service site" discussions were on hold. (I'd have to look at my notes for his exact wording.) So would you rate your site with RSAC-PS? -Declan On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Jonah Seiger wrote: > At 3:12 PM -0700 7/24/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Jonah Seiger wrote: > > > >> We do not believe ratings are appropriate for news sites or sites that are > >> geared toward public discussion of political/social issues (CDT has refused > >> to rate our sites with RSAC). > > > >Of course that hasn't stopped CDT from, as I understand it, proposing > >a "public service site" exemption to RSAC, similar to the "news site" > >exemption. > > This is not even close to accurate. We have not proposed anything. > > We have told RSAC that we will not rate our sites with their system because > we do not believe that ratings are appropriate for politically > oriented/social issues sites or news sites. > > When we discovered that RSAC was considering a news rating, we were > concerned and asked them to tell us what they had in mind. As part of that > conversation, we asked whether CDT and the other sites we produce (which > are not 'news' sites in the same way the New York Times) would also fall > under that classification, or some other yet to be determined category. > > My guess is that this fact got garbled in the translation to you from > someone at RSAC (or perhaps you were just too eager find what you were > looking for). > > >RSAC-PS raises the same troubling questions as RSACnews: what is a "public > >service" group? Who decides? Is CDT? Focus on the Family? The > >fight-censorship archives? The Cato Institute? The Washington Post? The > >U.S. Congress? The Democratic Party? NAMBLA? Jim Bell's Multnomah County > >Common Law Court? > > These are exactly the same questions we asked RSAC. Ask them, not us -- > this is their idea. > > >The above is what I understand to be the case. I emailed CDT a week ago > >about this but haven't heard back. I'd appreciate clarification. > > Hope that helps. > > Jonah >

1 0

Clipper infringes patents
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ddt(a)lsd.com (Dave Del Torto) > >ENCRYPTION: The Clinton administration's encryption > > plans are having licensing troubles: The US Commerce > > Department's NIST is having licensing discussions > > with inventors over its Digital Signature Standard, > > and an MIT scientist claims that the Clipper chip > > infringes on his patents. <WSJ 5/31 p.B6> > > Can someone please post the id of this "MIT Scientist?" Micali. He claims Clipper (and escrowed systems in general) violate his 2 year old "fair" crypto patent. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA The National Fairness to Game Animals Association says: Support your right to arm bears! --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Multiple encryption
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

perry(a)imsi.com: > Jay Prime Positive says: > > If you suspect that some of the non DOD/NSA cyphers might be broken, > > but you are not ready to employ one-time-pads, then you should > > threshold you mesages into N parts so that all N are needed to recover > > the original. Then encrypt each part under a different cypher. > > Its far simpler to encrypt your message with multiple systems, one > after another, than to break it up in the manner you suggest, and the > security is in fact better that way than in the manner you suggest. > It's not a good idea to encrypt binaries unless you know what they are. It's not a good idea to apply one encryption system over another unless you're sure of what you're doing, and know the effect of the two interacting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA The National Fairness to Game Animals Association says: Support your right to arm bears! --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

PGP 2.6 is outside the US
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

pauls(a)dcs.rhbnc.ac.uk: > Am I jumping the gun? Should we just let MIT's v2.6 reach an FTP site > somewhere outside of the USA and let it slowly (and cautiously) get > distributed to a small community of cypherpunks leaving the rest incompatible? > > All of those inside the USA, *PLEASE* get involved with this. It _is_ > important! As I've pointed out before, MIT PGP 2.6 _is_ outside the US. I'll list just one site: ftp.dsi.unimi.it /pub/security/crypt/PGP/pgp26.zip Anyway, lucky non-US users can use the better PGP 2.6ui based on the original code which is faster than MIT PGP's RSAREF. contact mathew(a)mantis.co.uk ftp.dsi.unimi.it /pub/security/crypt/PGP/pgp26ui* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rishab Aiyer Ghosh rishab(a)dxm.ernet.in Voicemail +91 11 3760335; Vox/Fax/Data 6853410 H-34C Saket New Delhi 110017 INDIA The National Fairness to Game Animals Association says: Support your right to arm bears! --------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Problems with anonymous escrow 2--response
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by jamesd(a)netcom.com (James A. Donald) on Sun, 4 Sep 11:24 AM >I am complaining about dangerous carelessness in your >use and definition of words. Your use of the word >reputation is as fraught with frightful consequences >as Marx's use of the word "value". > >Reputation based systems work for freedom, and coercion > based systems work for centralized government, for >obvious reasons that all of us agree upon. > >*Define* reputations to be something other than >reputations, and you are kicking the crucial foundation >out from under freedom. >support a reputation, but by abandoning the correct >usage of the word "reputation" you have obscured that >fact from yourself. >Use the word *credentials*, not the word *reputations*. >If we were to start using the word *reputations* in the > way that you have been using it, we will make errors >with vastly more serious consequences that the errors >that you have made. James, Your answers to Hal and Tim have been enlightening. And your attempt to move away from nominalism to improve precision of language and to ward off inadverdent undermining of fundamentals, is admirable, that is, if I understand your objections to Hal's proposals correctly. Perhaps to avoid counter-objections that matters of definition all to often lead back into nominalistic debates, you will be able to suggest practical examples of what you mean by "dangerous", "frightful", "serious consequences", "kicking the crucial foundation out from under freedom", and the like. Sometimes these melodramatic terms obscure rather than point toward concrete situations that will convey your intentions more effectively. Your strong feelings on these matters are clear, but I for one do not know what you would do in place of what Hal, and others, are proposing, to build and sustain reputations in the electronic realm. Not, to be sure, to undermine what is valid in brickspace, but how such firm foundations might be extended, even emulated occasionally, in the cyber realm. I don't yet see these efforts as threatening as you claim. When you get a chance, your specific examples would help. Thanks. John

4 4

Where to ftp ITAR docs
by rishab＠dxm.ernet.in 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Matthew.Ghio(a)andrew.cmu.edu: > Is there anywhere I can ftp a copy of the ITAR law? ftp.eff.org /pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/* (includes lots of other relevant stuff, cantwell bill etc.)

1 0