December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

Re: Does PGP scale well?
by jrochkin＠cs.oberlin.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:53 PM 02/11/95, Tom Jones wrote: >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? It seems like it might be important to note, however, that the government identification systems are definitely _centrazilized_ modes of information storage and distribution. Credit buearues are less obviously centralized, but still perhaps centralized. And it could be argued that credit bureaus would never have used a system like social security numbers for identification if it hadn't already been in widespread use in the centralized governmental systems which created it. This is in sharp contrast to the decentralized mode that we want our encryption and authorization to function in. This is for anti-authoritarian reasons, as well as simply practical reasons. When the government is involved, it can mandate that everyone use the system they are in control of, and they can get the neccesary manpower to actually implement a centralized system too. But we don't want to have to trust any one authority, and we also want a system where everyone does their own work (like DNS, where every domain has it's own server), if possible. Conventional wisdom is that PGP is inherently decentralized, and it is, in a sense, and in it's current web-of-trust model. But a social-security-number model of key distribution would definitely _not_ be centralized. You are assigned your social security number by a central authority, and others can look up your social security number by consulting with that central authority, or with other authorities that have themselves consulted with the central authority. That's not a model most of us think desirable for PGP key distribution. [It also could be noted that a SSN has some contained meaning, where a PGP keyid doesn't. The prefixes on your SSN say what state (and maybe even what county, I'm not sure) you were born in. But generally this isn't very useful information, so this probably isn't an important point.]

1 0

Secure Drive ver. & loc. ?
by Gary Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dear Cypherpunks, Does anyone know where the latest version of SECURE DRIVE really is & what the latest version is? Yours Truly, Gary Jeffers - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLz1GuyoZzwIn1bdtAQFCrwF/ZH4w9VdubpZRH8JPRDm+N56aMNVg3riW EcVCDcsWaTUUqFB8E1fazTfJSL2mAgEP =eE7u -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0