December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Clinton's threat of line-item veto affect crypto bill?
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

shit - the SJ Merc. reported he'll just veto the legislation, plain and simple. At 04:36 PM 8/4/97 -0700, Ernest Hua wrote: > >Does anyone have any idea whether Clinton's threat of using the >line-item veto against portions of the big spending bill could >be leverage against some pro-SAFE legislators? > >Ern > > >

1 0

Re: Tim 1 - Joichi 0 - DreamMonger NULL / Re: Joichi gives up (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Tue, 05 Aug 1997 13:25:48 +0900 > From: Joichi Ito <jito(a)eccosys.com> > Subject: Re: Tim 1 - Joichi 0 - DreamMonger NULL / Re: Joichi gives up > (fwd) > At 07:44 97/08/04 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > If all it takes to take over the citizens of Japan is to bash them a little > > then you folks are Doomed. Perhaps you have spent one too many days > > hammering nails that stick up... > > I meant get bashed here... and I don't hammer nails. Hammers nail me. > And it seems like there are US hammers too. "To a hammer everything > looks like a nail." Which puts just about everything at an advantage over the hammer. At least its actions are consistent and predictable. A hammer can't hurt that which it can't hit. (hint: nails don't move) Ta ta... Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Crypto Legislation Page - docs and links
by geeman＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've collected all the stuff I've had laying around since Feb. or so regarding the Senate and House Bills on crypto, including comment papers and links thereto, Congressional Record dumps, and so forth. I intend to keep this up to date as things 'move forward' --- Thanks to these lists for a lot of pointers to valuable information; my hope is that my page provides a central location for monitoring, as much of the information has been scattered about among the .org's who are watching, JYA, etc. etc. Any comments appreciated, thx. see www.best.com/~geeman

1 0

European Union Bank
by axlotl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- axlotl(a)cyberpass.net

1 0

Oz
by Grant Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are there any Australian cypherpunks ? Contact me & we'll get together a local chapter, Grant Sparks grant(a)sparks.to Finger me for PGP and WWW information.

1 0

EC Crypto Policy
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

EC Ministers Draw Up European Online Policy August 5, 1997 Newsbytes : by Steve Gold. Following on from a conference held in Germany last month, representatives from 39 European countries have signed a declaration calling for the free flow of information. The event, held between July 6-8 in Bonn, was called "Global Information Networks: Realizing the Potential," and was attended by 39 European ministers, as well as European Commission (EC) representatives from Japan, Russia, the US and Canada. At the event, ministers focused on two main issues: encryption, and the censorship of illegal material such as child pornography on the Internet. The declaration notes that there are a number of important differences between US and Europe on encryption and information privacy. According to MacRoberts, the Edinburgh, Scotland-based information technology (IT) law firm, the declaration may not go down too well in US circles, since it is conceivable that the EC may block US-based businesses from conducting electronic commerce on the Internet. According to officials with MacRoberts, this could result in European becoming isolated, rather than the EC teaching the US a lesson. According to MacRoberts, the Bonn declaration calls for the free flow of information, whilst protecting the privacy of data, and a clear division of legal responsibility between the creators of Internet content and access providers, network operators and other intermediaries. In addition, the declaration calls for the recognition of the necessity of strong encryption technology, to facilitate electronic commerce subject to "applicable law," and the introduction of consumer protection through self- regulation. According to Joanna Noag-Thomson, an associate in MacRobert's Intellectual Property and Technology Law Group, the declaration deals with many of the issues in President Clinton's "Framework for Global Electronic Commerce" and, while the US and Europe appear to agree on many fundamental issues, important policy differences continue to exist, particularly in the areas of information privacy and encryption. "The European stance on encryption is to be commended -- the European Ministers' view is more commercially acceptable in that it recognizes that electronic commerce requires strong encryption technology," she said. "At the same time, it recognizes that measures to restrict encryption should be proportionate At present, the US and Europe appear to have different views on what constitutes `proportionate' restrictions," she added. According to Boag-Thomson, the EC has warned that, unless the US provides adequate protection of personal information, it may block any US-based entity from conducting electronic commerce on the Internet. "The EU Data Protection Directive forbids data flow to countries outside the EU which do not offer adequate protection of personal information. Although data protection is extremely important, I hope that we in Europe will not find ourselves isolated from the rest of the world and that a solution to this problem can be found," she said. (19970804/Press Contact: Joanna Boag-Thomson +44-141-332-9988; Fax +44-141-332- 8886; E-mail: joannab(a)macroberts.co.uk

1 0

"required" and "voluntary"
by Jeff Barber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While following Wombat's link, I found this amusing piece: http://www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/cta958.htm Don't you just hate it when you're "required" to adopt "voluntary" measures. oo -----------------------------cut /\ here------------------------------ Bill would call for greater Net privacy protection WASHINGTON - Many people who surf the Internet don't know that personal information on them can be collected at the sites they visit. But that could change under a bill to be offered Wednesday by a key telecommunications lawmaker which aims to give computer users greater privacy protections. The bill by Rep. Billy Tauzin, R-La., would bar companies from disclosing or using without consent people's medical and financial records, as well as government information such as social security numbers that are available online, said spokesman Ken Johnson. As chairman of the House Commerce Committee's telecommunications subcommittee, Tauzin has considerable power to advance legislation through the chamber. A hearing is planned for this fall. The bill also would require companies to adopt voluntary guidelines to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ protect computer users' privacy when personal and other information is collected from them online for marketing purposes, Johnson said. Web site owners can use technology to track, for instance, hobbies and buying habits of visitors. The owners can then sell the information to advertisers and other interested parties without the consent or knowledge of the computer user. The Federal Trade Commission is now looking into the issue. To short-circuit any regulatory action, companies including Microsoft and Netscape Communications, the biggest makers of Web browsers, have proposed letting computer users specify what personal information they are willing to share and with which Web sites. The bill also would require companies to adopt voluntary guidelines that ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ would help reduce junk e-mail, or "spamming" as it's called in cyberspace, Johnson said. [snip]

1 0

[ANNOUNCE] Another Bay Area August Cypherpunks Meeting - Mountain View
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:03 PM 8/2/97 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >This month's SF Bay Area Cypherpunks meeting will take place at a new >location. Please pay close attention to the directions. >Saturday, August 9, 1997 at 1:00 PM PDT. [22:00 local] >The Workshop tent, HIP'97 Campground, Almere, The Netherlands. For those who aren't that HIP or Beyond HOPE, or are otherwise still in Western North America, Another SF Bay Area Cypherpunks Meeting will take place in Mountain View, at Printer's Ink on Castro Street. Besides the usual Cypherpunks topics, the program will include the Small Brewers' Festival http://www.smallbrewersfest.com/ which will be taking place that day in Mountain View. (An extremely serious program is anticipated, potentially followed by The Reptiles and Jerry's Kids in Redwood City that night.) If anybody brings a Metricom modem, we can try to connect with the Netherlands meeting by PGPfone or the HIP'97 VRML server; please let me know if you plan to bring one so we can conspire about connectivity. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list or news, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

"Censor's Sensibility" sidebar, from Time Magazine
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

_________________________________________________________________ BUSTED! Some surprising sites get trapped in the filters CyberPatrol (www.heritage.org/heritage/) The Heritage Foundation (www.mit.edu/activities/safe) M.I.T. free-speech society (news:clari.tw.health.aids) Reuters articles about AIDS NetNanny (www.odci.gov/) U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (www.cs.cmu.edu/~spok/banned-books.html) Banned-books archive (www.now.org/) National Organization for Women _________________________________________________________________

3 2

"A new battle over keeping the Net clean," by J.Weber/LATimes
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 10:49:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: "A new battle over keeping the Net clean," by J.Weber/LATimes ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 09:23:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Jonathan Weber <Jonathan.Weber(a)latimes.com> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: ratings story Innovation/ Jonathan Weber A New Battle Over Keeping the Web Clean WASHINGTON When Congress passed the Internet censorship law known as the Communications Decency Act early last year, the many companies, advocacy groups and individuals with a stake in the Internet rose up as one to challenge the measure in court. But now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the CDA unconstitutional, the victorious coalition is fracturing, and a bitter battle is being joined over the Clinton-backed effort to develop a rating and labeling system for the Internet. On one side are the big, mainstream Internet and computer companies, led by America Online and Microsoft, which proclaim their eagerness to make cyberspace "safe for families.'' Lining up against them are free-speech advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Library Assn., which see ratings systems as censorship tools. It's not exactly a fair fight: Ratings proponents have popular opinion, the economic interests of the industry and the power of the presidency on their side. But here's a prediction: The free-speech forces will lose the battle, but they'll ultimately win the war. And with a little luck there won't be too much damage done in the interim. The debate over ratings begins with a technology called PICS, which stands for "platform for Internet content selection.'' PICS is a mechanism for labeling Web pages according to their content. The labels can then be read by a software program, which in turn can block access to sites that have specific types of content. PICS itself is not a ratings system, but rather a method for implementing a ratings system. The theory is that once PICS is in place throughout the Internet, a multiplicity of ratings systems would emerge. A Christian Coalition ratings system might block access to anything with any sexual content as well as certain political sites, for example, while another system might block only hard-core porn. Parents and others could easily choose. So far, so good. There would be no law requiring Web sites to use PICS labels; the Clinton administration has stressed that any ratings plan would be voluntary. But parents and others would get a new toolone more robust and effective than existing software programs, such as CyberPatrol, that block out sites deemed unsuitable for kids. The free speech purists have a philosophical objection even to this. ""Ratings systems are developed to enable one individual to exercise control over what another person sees,'' says Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. That might be OK for parents and their children, he allows, but such a tool will inevitably be used by public institutions and governmentsif not here then abroadto restrict speech. An even bigger worry is that what's being sold as a voluntary system that will include a multiplicity of ratings systems is actually going to be an all-but-mandatory system that offers very few choices. Consider, first of all, what happens to Web sites that decline to rate their pages. Any PICS-based filter would have to block all unrated pages. Already, ratings proponents are calling on the major search services, such as Yahoo, not to index unrated sites. Overseas Web services would face the choice of adopting a U.S. labeling system or forgoing access to any U.S. readers. Web publishers that didn't want to participate might suddenly find themselves in a deserted backwater of the network. There's also the question of how disputes over ratings would be arbitrated. Sites would be self-rated, and in fact the vast majority of sites would have no incentive to misrepresent themselves. But what happens when some do anyway? Would it be a crime for a porn site to proclaim itself suitable for children? At the moment, moreover, it doesn't appear that there are a variety of ratings systems under development representing different values. In fact, a system being created by the Recreational Software Advisory Council, a Microsoft-led industry group, is quickly emerging as a de facto standard. The battles over how RSAC handles certain kinds of sites have only just begun, but to see the inevitable problems one need look no further than the ongoing discussion about news. N ews sites, reasonably enough, don't want to rate themselves. At the very least it would be impractical to label every page of a big news site every day to warn of violent or tasteless or otherwise disturbing content. And labeling news just doesn't seem very consistent with freedom of the press. So the news organizations want to have a special news rating. Who qualifies for a news rating? Well, a committeeoperating under the auspices of the Internet Content Coalition, which represents a number of major publishers (including The Times)would decide. News organizations get together to decide who is and who isn't a news organization. Hmm. In the face of these objections, the Clinton administration and the companies backing the ratings effort say that, first of all, something has to be done to stave off new legislation. If industry doesn't act, Congress will come up with "son of CDA,'' and this time it might hold up in court. There are other motives too, though, namely a desire to expand the market. "Nothing is as important as making this medium family-friendly,'' America Online Chairman Steve Case declared here last week. That's funny coming from him, because AOL owes much of its success to its decidedly un-family-friendly sex-chat rooms, but he's obviously decided that a clean image is important to further growth. The online giant is spearheading a two-day meeting here in October, where the ratings battle is likely to come to a head. The administration and the big companies both want to bring the Internet into the mainstream. If some of its wilder and woollier aspects are marginalized in the process, well, good. And that is the nightmare of free-speech advocates: that a medium that the Supreme Court declared ought to be treated at least as liberally as print (ever heard of ratings for books?) will nonetheless be driven into TV-like conformity. This is a legitimate fear. Personally, though, I don't think the worst will happen. The Internet is simply too big, too diverse and too fast-changing to be tamed by even a semi-voluntary ratings mechanism. The business interests, moreover, cut both ways: Family-friendly might look like a way to expand the market today, but pornography and gambling and even radical politics are sure to remain a big part of the online landscape. AOL's Case says that online service providers competing on the basis of who is more family-friendly would be akin to airlines competing based on their safety records. That's a ridiculous analogy: Everyone thinks plane crashes are bad, but not everyone feels the same way about controls on Internet content. In my ideal world, Internet providers should be competing based on values, not trying to impose some kind of bogus consensus. Esther Dyson, one of the industry's most respected thinkers, favors the development of PICS as a tool but stresses the importance of choicesand of people taking responsibility for their actions. In the wired world, she says, power is constantly shifting and devolving away from central authorities, and that requires individuals to be less passive: "I want local control,'' she says. "I don't want no control.'' PICS and RSAC have powerful forces behind them and stand a good chance of establishing themselves as part of the mainstream Internet. But there's a natural tendency toward diversity in cyberspace, and it's hard to see how they would become ubiquitous. If individuals and organizations are vigilant about how ratings are usedi.e., not by governments and not by public institutions such as librariesthere's a chance that they'll remain what they were originally intended to be: one of many means for people to manage the often unmanageable Internet. Jonathan Weber (Jonathan.Weber(a)latimes.com) is editor of The Cutting Edge. ********************************************************************** Jonathan Weber Jonathan.Weber(a)latimes.com Technology Editor Los Angeles Times

2 1