December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

automatic reply to test posting (lwall)
by news＠visionware.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

STOP! Before you panic, read this message through to the end. This message has been sent to you because you have posted an article to one of the Usenet test groups (eg alt.test), and it arrived here at Visionware (visionware.co.uk) on Sat 11 Feb, 11:44 GMT. If you have not posted an article to one of these groups, then it is possible that someone else did so while pretending to be you. If you are sure that this is the case then ask your Local Help Desk to help you track down the perpertrator. It is not possible to track down forgeries from this site. Many people like to see copies of the articles that they post, so that they can see how far (and how quickly) their message has been transmitted. Accordingly, you will get at most one email message from Visionware for each article you post to a *.test newsgroup. You have *not* been added to a subscription list. It is not possible to stop the replies to other messages you may have already posted, but in FUTURE POSTINGS you can prevent this autoresponder from replying to you by including a phrase like "don't reply" or "ignore this message". This site, visionware.co.uk, is located at Visionware Ltd., which is in lovely Leeds, West Yorkshire, England (53 48 34 N / 01 34 51 W). In case you want to know, we're running INN 1.4sec. We deliberately receive the 'ba' (Bay Area) distribution; this is for our staff working from Menlo Park CA. Feel free to send your comments, suggestions, and questions regarding this auto-reply daemon to the administrator, postmaster(a)visionware.co.uk (telephone +44 113 251-2000 and ask for the System Administrator). You should get a response to email within a day or so; if not, then your message has probably not arrived. Your article, as received here, follows: > Path: visionware.co.uk!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!overload.lbl.gov!emf.emf.net!hilbert.dnai.com!nbn!miwok!news.zeitgeist.net!ack.berkeley.edu!not-for-mail > Subject: lwall > Message-ID: <PINE4545-dhfsdkjc(a)ack.berkeley.edu> > NNTP-Posting-Host: ack.berkeley.edu > Organization: cypherpunks > Lines: 2 > From: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Distribution: world > Newsgroups: alt.test > Date: 6 Feb 1995 19:34:19 GMT > > test > test --

1 0

Privacy vs. Ubiquitous Video: NetCam; Wearable WebCam, etc
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Saw this in technomads. Not necessarily crypto, but certainly privacy related... Cheers, Bob Hettinga >Date: Fri, 10 Feb 95 19:11:08 -0500 >From: Steve Mann <steve(a)media.mit.edu> >To: technomads(a)ucsd.edu >Subject: NetCam; Wearable WebCam, etc >Cc: steve(a)media.mit.edu > > >I am an amateur television (ATV) hobbyist, interested in things like >driving radio-controlled cars using a head mounted display (HMD) >(which involves putting myself into the ``usual'' perspective >of the car), or playing tennis with an HMD linked to a stand >mounted camera (which is exactly the opposite: the radiocar is >like a flight simulator from the cockpit, while the tennis example >is like switching to the ``control tower''). I've also been >interested in wearable photographic equipment (such as a wearable >2400J flashlamp I use for ``lightpainting''). > >More recently, I've become interested in sending and receiving >video (and digital stills) over the WWW (e.g. Wearable WebCam, >and WebCar -- radiocar on the WWW). > >I would like to hear from any other ATV hobbyists, people into >packet radio, and those interested in wearable cameras, and >combining wearable cameras with wearable computing. Another >application I was interested in was wearable vision (e.g. for >the visually impaired, or simply to augment the regular human >visual system). > >Therefore, I've started a new mailing list, ``netcam(a)media.mit.edu'', >to discuss issues related to wearable cameras, as well as communications >and computation issues associated with wearable cameras. I am also >interested in some of the privacy issues associated with wearable >cameras (as I touch on in http://www-white.media.mit.edu/~steve) >and the social implications of a society in which there are >ubiquitous cameras (both wearable and fixed) connected to various >high speed communications networks. > >If you would like to be added to netcam(a)media.mit.edu, please >email netcam-request(a)media.mit.edu > >--steve ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) "There is no difference between someone Shipwright Development Corporation who eats too little and sees Heaven and 44 Farquhar Street someone who drinks too much and sees Boston, MA 02331 USA snakes." -- Bertrand Russell (617) 323-7923

1 0

NYT on Cybertheft and Sex Writer
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ralph Blumenthal writes on NYC conference on "cyberthieves" of ideas and intellectual property. For email copy send blank message to <jya(a)pipeline.com> with subject: TEF_ida Peter Lewis writes on the U Mich student arrested for posting fictional rough sex story. For email copy, same, with subject: RIT_xxx ---------- Also, for the famished, these not very fresh tomatoes: Negroponte writes OpEd piece supporting Newt's idea for a laptop in every cave, arguing that it will help with international economic competition, especially against those countries with the youngest population. NEG_poo Peter Lewis writes on PSI's buy of Pipeline. PSI_pip

2 1

Four Horsemen of the Infopocalypse?
by Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Terrorists, Drug Dealers, Pornography and Piracy (copyright, patent & trademarks) ^^^^^^ That's been left out... and likely it's the one some of the authorities fear most. Money can be made off of terrorists, drug dealers and pornograpy by allowing them to exist as a "threat" rather than actually stopping them. Piracy is a whole different matter (though some would argue that it applies to allow it as well...) Off the subject of crypto, though.... Rob

1 0

Re: Not necessarily crypt
by lee.noon＠mgmtsys.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.91.950209105922.8309A-100000(a)chewy.wookie.net> slowdog(a)wookie.net wrote: SG>On Thu, 9 Feb 1995, Robert Rothenburg Walking-Owl wrote: SG>> I heard yesterday that someone in the House of Representatives proposed an >> amendment to the new crime bill which was soundly defeated it. Turns out t >> Amendment was worded exactly as the Fourht Amendment in the Bill 'o Rights >> Apparently many a congressman/woman has egg on their face... SG>Yes indeed, in response to the H666 bill. The Dems placed up for vote the >text of the 4th Amendment without attributing it to be such. It was >defeated. Dems then immediately took to the floor of the House accusing >the Repubs of tryingto dismantle the Constitution. Almost all right. The Dems did acknowledge it was the fourth amendment, they drummed on that fact during the debate. What they failed to explain was that the amendment was not offered TO the bill but IN PLACE OF the bill. Even the Republicans failed to properly explain this, instead saying it would "gut the bill." This bill is not new, people. It codifies what has been the practice in two federal district courts for several years. The boogie man raised most often it the "confidential informant." The use of a bogus CI is illegal. It is still illegal under this bill. The major problem with this bill is it does not add the penalty to law enforcement officers for "bad faith actions." This was proposed by the republicans last year and ignored by the democrats. Tis year the republicans had the power to push it through and they ignored it. Shows how really different they are. The "bad faith actions" provision would have made a LEO who knowingly generated a search warrant, searched without one without probable cause, liable for criminal charges at the federal level. In other words when cop A uses cop B as his evidence for a warrant, and cop B lies, cop B goes to jail. If cop A knew it was a lie, cop A goes to jail. If it results in a shoot out like Waco and lives are lost, he goes to jail on murder one charges. This carries the death penalty for a federal offense. Naturally the one outfit which opposed this the most was the BATF, who violates this provision as the preferred way to do business. It is now up to the senate. Hopefully Senator Byrd can stop taking about his dog long enough to bring these points to the fore. Lee Lee Noon (lee.noon(a)mgmtsys.com) * 1st 2.00b #3833 * A government can't give back anything it hasn't taken first.

1 0

Forwarded mail....
by Brad Dolan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Linda does a good job but I frankly didn't believe this when I got it. So I checked. Unfortunately, this is true. Herr Klinton has, by executive order, suspended part of the constitution which gives him his powers. This is not logical, but if he has enough guys with guns backing him up, that doesn't matter. Good luck to you all. I may occasionally read my mail but from now on my efforts are going to be focused on getting moved out of this hellhole before they "seal the borders." (another project of Janet Reno's) Regards, Brad Dolan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 95 05:06 EST From: lindat(a)iquest.net To: caji(a)aol.com Please excuse any duplication to you. I have not finished sorting out my lists and only recently figured out the difference between individuals and newsgroups (and have not yet gotten the names that are already in newsgroups). This was too important to wait on me to finish sorting. *********************** ALERT ALERT ************************ WARRENTLESS SEARCHES CAN NOW BE APPROVED BY FREEH, RENO, DOD, ET. AL. AND CONDUCTED BY ANY FED AGENCY. DUE TO THE CRIME BILL, THE FED AGENCIES ARE NOW ALL OPERATING IN CONSOLIDATED "TASK FORCES." THIS EXECUTIVE ORDER ***SPECIFICALLY*** APPLIES TO ANYONE USING COMPUTER COMMUNICATIONS TO GATHER INFORMATION (SEE THE UNDERLYING LAW AT 50 USC 1801.) IT MAY ALSO BE USED TO APPLY TO MILITIAS BY THE AMBIGUOUS WORDING IN 50 USC 1801 and PL 103-359 THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary ___________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release February 9, 1995 EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("Act") (50 U.S.C. 1801, et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications required by that section. Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information. Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of national security or defense, is designated to make the certifications required by section 303(a)(7) of the Act in support of applications to conduct physical searches: (a) Secretary of State; (b) Secretary of Defense; (c) Director of Central Intelligence; (d) Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; (e) Deputy Secretary of State; (f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and (g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence. None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. WILLIAM J. CLINTON THE WHITE HOUSE, February 9, 1995. ****************************************************************************** * Dr. Linda D. Thompson NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE. * * American Justice Federation * * 3850 S. Emerson Avenue, Suite E, Indianapolis, IN 46203 * * Telephone: (317) 780-5203 AEN News BBS: (317) 780-5211 * * Fax: (317) 780-5209 Orders (Visa/MC) 1-800-749-9939 * * Internet: Lindat(a)iquest.net * *******************************************************************************

1 0

Re: Re: Laws, Feds, & the Internet
by jtender＠telerama.lm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Richard F. Dutcher" <rfdutcher(a)igc.apc.org> writes: > They *do* have to prove intent -- as to how, that's what juries are > for. BTW, he used her real name in the post, with no disclaimers > about fiction. From what I have heard, if he had said the same thing > in her presence, he could have been arrested for assault. > > So is saying something that would be actionable in a public space > also actionable in a public cyberspace? I dunno, and neither does > anyone else. But it's a well-established principle that a threat is > a shout of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. How do you know what was in the original post? Can you post a copy here? -- JT "From the purlieus of Pittsburgh" jtender(a)telerama.lm.com "Everything must GO"

1 0

Re: Re: Laws, Feds, & the Internet
by jtender＠telerama.lm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Richard F. Dutcher" <rfdutcher(a)igc.apc.org> writes: > They *do* have to prove intent -- as to how, that's what juries are > for. BTW, he used her real name in the post, with no disclaimers > about fiction. From what I have heard, if he had said the same thing > in her presence, he could have been arrested for assault. How do yopu know the content of the original post? Can you post it here? -- JT "From the purlieus of Pittsburgh" jtender(a)telerama.lm.com "Everything must GO"

1 0

"Being Digital" spinde
by Rick H. Wesson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought you guy's would enjoy this... I found out Nicholas Negroponte, the author of "being Digital" encoded a message in the spine of the book all ones and zeros. It's a decent book, and not much about crypto except for the spine. I made a text file mof the 1260 bits on the spine. a sample perl script is included to grab the bits. Next mont's issue of wired is supposed to have a discussion about the spine and the encrypted messages. the only hint I've got is: 000 000 111 I know how you guys love this stuff, he says it's (the code) is unbreakable... -Rick ========================= Cut Here ========================== begin 644 bd.tar.gz M'XL("%HL/2\``V)D+G1A<@#M5E%OVS80]FOX*VYQ@+9`9Y&6:6W(NCUM0X"A M#WL;NJV0+#H6HDB"*,,-ANVWC^3=41Z&[LT9T/(+8H>ZTW=WW]T1J>IL<6G` M1A9:PP(`U`:_0:WQ&R$!=*&*]7JKUKDSREQO%Z`OGIG#T4[E"+`X&6O[\?!1 M/^>VWS]'0L^+JLZJ>C6TEXRAY'_W?UW$_NLBWSJCR@NY`'G)I!B?>?^77V1' M.V9MORO;K&JZ;#!C*X1OR\T/=S]]#V_@V@U(74[7M^%I/YCNI;>\NA7BZJ:R MWH-LIT/3FI??>.NWK_X05YWY,$&SA^SW97:+SJLW</,>O?_$*)[A+[#9KUV6 M/=ZC:=?VUG`4_P`S&L:FF_P;M^+_UNU3`>Z_:^\%8[C]WVXV']W_/-=KWO^\ MV$B__SHOTOX_!Y9B"?NQ?X3I8,`.36>@W[N5-TUW#W5SWTQE>PW5$[QM=H>^ M+2V\-?=C/_236;E7`9H)1E.V3S`TUAH+CYY@[ZX"T\$=',H:IA[JWO$W%J93 MLS.K%;[Y2W]T&]V755FYUT^E6VWGNCN8W4/P?@UWDP53VB?_?!K+S@[N6@BV M0&"GXWZ_@A_'_CB8&IK.3U7E$^I/[FWMOZ%R5]N#.ZGU5GJCQ>!7[UQ1D\NW M[KL7$YSZ\>&UTL5*X^/OX+?@]N7/S>Y!+/T/:"&5DFZ8PX=PO^Y/%1X)&4XR M6-D2CB*X*#PZ$O^$'=TS@>\K-!,U4RI%)"JX<73/H@4:Z0DE$CR$8G:%P2@$ MICQ3+F&-09`%BY(a)/S.\A,$>L2A!%^/(LFL)CF501%:%8(L6Z<,HLDL)<<BDD MRR2Q8"*B\BA3;^$\HV(8SK-H,8=0F+>D0(*K42PHIR#4G*1GV9#XL[JLHI*Q MB)D?_6;=)>JR";EPWF=2^"(XME+_5!=UX1A^Z*3@#N(XL6K>5_ZK+5@$L=#9 MLV@115&2IH+JB(*&(KB5;(GSXUBV..<\%W&VL`A.9!X1*H*[JK!'6RVBV-1/ MCLZ=X$['),_+PWDI:(^H$C938G%;@M1Q5<Y&$',I-(@H&D9ADMA0/`EVB6-- M%I_,5SQ<M'3Q`I@/5#XUC,8Z*H\L6K":9(["D?#T(7@@%.TF#5`HZ6MYM@*2 M#UQ$7)=0'@^,I'6G9#R+GFM4?&?Q;<`33[EP'^39;JHP=DK&Q&E%J+5*\@J> MC?(\A(H74A*-IHGE^L_O#LG7)(U!U.;\"E,B_<>8D)"0D)"0D)"0D)"0D)"0 3D)"0D)"0D/"9X&_^(G<;`"@``(U! ` end

1 0

Does PGP scale well?
by A5113643667＠attpls.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry has repeated a litany here that I have been hearing for years on the pem-dev list with never a hint of a justification. That is that PGP does not scale well. One of the reasons that I consider this to be untrue is my empirical experience with two groups that are constantly interested in exactly who I am: the government and the credit bureaus. They both chose to use my SSN even though that has all the same attributes of a KeyID, except that it is somewhat denser. Now if this is what happens when the real world tries to identify me, why is the KeyID such a bad way to identify keys? Please note that I do understand that identifying me and finding me are separate issues. I'm not sure that the pem-dev folk clearly discriminate these. Peace. Tom

4 4