December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

No Subject
by Kevin Stumborg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

send me mail

1 0

speeding detected by civilians
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

hate to start another endless thread on speeding limits, but this is an interesting privacy anecdote... hope this hasn't been posted here. === From: "Steven M. Horvath" <horvath(a)comm.mot.com> Subject: Speeder's Beware of Vernon Hills, IL. To: snet-l <snet-l(a)world.std.com> - - -------- FYI------------------FYI--------------------FYI----------------- Vernon Hills, IL. Vernon Hills, Illinois, a Chicago suburb, has passed legislation allowing citizens to check out radar guns from the local police department to catch speeders in their community. The radar guns are combined with cameras in order to instantaneously capture the car, license number, and the rate of speed. The citizens can check out the units for a week at a time. The police have stated that they, at this time, will use the data to issue warning letters to the violaters. - ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- End of Forwarded Message

5 4

HR361
by perry＠imsi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone previously noted that HR361, the omnibus export administration act, would require the administration to assess the impact of the current crypto export controls on the software industry? .pm

1 0

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)
by jfmesq＠ibm.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >In the subsection that explicitly mentions crypto, it says that it's >unlawful to put (non-GAK) crypto on an open net, "regardless of >whether such software has been designated non-exportable". If the >phrase "nonexportable" means the same thing in the context of this >subsection, then provision (b) would only seem to apply RICO to stuff >that already falls under ITAR. Pardon me if I misunderstood your point. I haven't read the whole bill, but I read the "regardless" phrase with a different emphasis. In short, that language appears to mean that one could be pounded with RICO for uploading crypto software even if the crypto is EXPORTABLE. The part about subsequent instances of actual access to non-exportable crypto by foreigners, etc. appears to address a different situation -- the situation where the crypto is non-exportable. In this different and much more "defiant" situation, the language would allow the feds to count predicate acts, not merely according to the actual instances of uploading activity, but also according to the number of times the crypto is downloaded by foreigners, etc. Perhaps a 10,000 to 1 ratio? It is unclear, not having read the entire bill, whether the onerous provision in the case of non-exportable crypto would apply in the case of exportable crypto. Perhaps our resident federal prosecutor might volunteer some insights into how the government might prove thousands of predicate acts, and thus a huge pattern of racketeering activity, as a result of a defendant uploading non-exportable crypto once to one site, and how the government might argue that uploading exportable crypto once to one known mirrored site (e.g., hobbes) would constitute uploads to all the mirrors -- i.e., multiple predicate acts. This email is academic speculation. This email is not legal advice, is not a consultation with counsel, and does not create an attorney- client relationship. (As a condition of entering into an attorney- client relationship, I require a formal, ink-signed fee agreement.) - --Jim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMAVmsEK9bzU1tDCZAQGOcAP/StGc/+/sbRCZLRJTwnhMGtda3Z7tYQ6G QhllCCwGZ0gddwtCmH98hQaQLAbGaFyaUd4SroM3bj3/NXX2xFucnY9ogPN2LHS9 9MZ/RzBO33iVjl/F0fHAIJiCnGCkHM58Gftgtg7gyOKCs+wBkJNQgOxsuuxw2rSs /nlYAv+ukN8= =wCJA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Encryption and ITAR
by It's supposed to crash like that. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know how far ITAR reaches? Is there a list of programs that are illegal to take from america anywhere else? My company does a LOT of buisness (80%) outside the US, and I wonder if they are maybe pissing off the NSA or somthing with some software they take with them. (a DES encrypter, and some other encryption stuff)

1 0

Fight, or Roll Over?
by cman＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since the Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 might as well be called the "Anti-Cypherpunk Act of 1995", I'm surprised to see Tim throw in the towel already, when the bill hasn't even made it through committee yet. Not that I place a lot of faith in our elected officials, but this bill seems to step on so many toes, and to be so plainly idiotic, that we are bound to get some support from unexpected quarters. Nothing surprised me more, in fact, than all the mainstream IS magazines (like Information Week) denouncing the Exon ammendment. This, though, is a much more subtle and insidious bill, and takes away something that most people don't even know they want yet. (The Exon ammendment, on the other hand, could have been dubbed, "The Cypherpunk Market-Creation Act of 1995.") Nevertheless, it is certainly possible to fight this bill and win, while at the same time, preparing to go underground if it passes. Go underground? Well, as I read it, this bill basically makes cypherpunks a "corrupt organization", subject to the full impact of the RICO statutes. With the passage of this bill, we will have the same status in the US as the neo-Nazis have in Germany, and will have to adopt similar communications and organization techniques. Who knows, maybe this is the best thing that could happen, although I'm real curious about who will back off to protect their ass-ets and who will actually keep on chugging towards crypto anarchy. In the short term, I've renewed or started memberships in the organizations that are likely to fight this -- but I'm also fired up to get more easy-to-use software out there, and do what I can to help build infrastructure that can resist this sort of nonsense.

4 5

Re: SSL RC4 challenge
by Jonathan Shekter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Quoth tedwards(a)src.umd.edu: >On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, alex wrote: >> Can't we hold off a few weeks on this, so that we can all short the stock >> once it's been offered? <g> > >Hmm...well, considering we have yet to break the first 40-bit RC4 key >(with 87.1 of the keyspace searched), I think it might be a bit early to >make financial decisions based on our cracking abilities. Yes, but it is highly unlikely we have a valid plaintext/cyphertext pair. Since the format of SSL is known precisely, we won't have this problem. But, yes, let's break the example SSL transaction first. - Jonathan -- ____________________________________________________ / Jonathan Shekter / / / Graphics Hack / "Probability alone / / Alias/Wavefront / dictates that I exist" / /______________________/____________________________/

1 0

private idaho
by steven ryan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am trying to run Private Idaho. I tried the 2.1 version as well as the new beta version. I have all the files in the same directory as PGP. When I create a message and select clear sign it spawns a dos box that is all black with the cursor in the top left corner. If I hit return it closes the box and gives the following message: File not found in the sign routine, couldn't create output file. Any ideas on what might cause this or pointers to additional information would be welcome. Steven Ryan sryan(a)reading.com

1 0

Re: Fight, or Roll Over?
by tcmay＠sensemedia.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:10 PM 7/13/95, Robert A. Hayden wrote: >On Thu, 13 Jul 1995, Douglas Barnes wrote: > >> Since the Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 might as well >> be called the "Anti-Cypherpunk Act of 1995", I'm surprised to see >> Tim throw in the towel already, when the bill hasn't even made it >> through committee yet. > >I don't think Tim threw in the towell on this bill, but has come to >realize that the overall war on privacy cannot be won by concentrating on >the individual battles. We've ALL got to take a deep breath and come up >with a different plan of attack; a plan that the TLAs and spooks will be >unable to defend against. Right now, as long as we're kept busy with >individual bills and initiatives, they have us just where they want us. Exactly! By causing us to go into paroxysms of activity every time they throw a new piece of legislation over the transom, we dissipate our efforts in more promising areas. There's a place for lobbying--and I'm even a member of the EFF. But lobbying is best done by those with lobbying backgrounds, legal backgrounds, and a penchant for fund-raising. There was once talk, in April of '93, about the Washington, D.C. Cypherpunks group adopting "lobbying" as their own special focus area, with educational visits to Congressional aides and attendance at crypto-related hearings. Nothing came of this, for whatever reasons. Why do I mention this? Most Cypherpunks live far from Washington, and our influence is minimal. Few can travel to D.C. on even an occasional basis, etc. (Ironically, EFF is evacuating D.C. I won't get into what their reasons might be, but certainly they will now have even less effect. I'll say one thing: the leaders of EFF may have realized what a trap lobbying can become, and have chosen to instead focus on other areas.) Anyway, Cypherpunks is a worldwide, technological-oriented group. We can do more by spreading technology and undermining repressive legislation than we can by being just another ineffectual lobbying group. As I said in another message, if folks want to do it, fine. Organizationally and financially, we are not equipped for lobbying. No budget, no leadership, no bylaws, no tax filings, no report writings, nothing. (Some of these things are important for lobbying, some are less so. The "leadership" part is pretty important: who could claim to "speak" on behalf of Cypherpunks? Nobody.) I suggest a different organization, a different mailing list, for this effort. --Tim May .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)sensemedia.net | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero 408-728-0152 | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Corralitos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^756839 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Checkfree/Cybercash Press release
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 03:42:07 -0700 >From: Davidwfox(a)eworld.com >To: www-buyinfo(a)allegra.att.com, e-payment(a)bellcore.com >Subject: Checkfree/Cybercash Press release > >CHECKFREE AND CYBERCASH JOIN FORCES TO DELIVER COMPREHENSIVE ELECTRONIC COM > > Consumers can conduct Internet transactions using checks, > credit cards or cash > > BOSTON, July 13 /PRNewswire/ -- Checkfree Corporation and CyberCash, >Inc. announced today at the Interactive Services Association conference >that they will cooperatively develop and market products and services >that will allow consumers to safely conduct payment transactions, in >real time, over the Internet using credit cards, debit cards, checks or >cash. > Checkfree, the nation's leading provider of electronic commerce >services, will license technology from CyberCash, a leader in secure, >end-to-end Internet payment systems. Checkfree will integrate >CyberCash's high level security features and ability to conduct cash >transactions into the Checkfree Wallet(TM), creating a single solution >for electronic payment transactions that offers checks, credit cards, >cash, coin or micropayments. > "Partnering with CyberCash was the logical choice for Checkfree," >says Pete Kight, founder and CEO of Checkfree. "Checkfree is committed >to leading the way for electronic commerce, and providing plug and play >Internet transaction solutions. The Checkfree Wallet(TM) is now an even >more attractive transaction platform for both consumers and merchants." > The Checkfree Wallet(TM) was introduced in April to allow consumers >to purchases goods and services from on-line merchants in a safe, >convenient and familiar manner. The Checkfree Wallet(TM) does not >require prior registration with merchants, and on-line shoppers pay no >fees or transaction service charges. With the addition of CyberCash's >technology consumers will be able to utilize cash securely over the >Internet and merchants will receive authorization in real time. In >addition, merchants will be able to accept payments from any on-line >consumers, regardless of the server or browser they are using. > "Checkfree's long, successful record of developing applications for >home banking and electronic bill payment is a perfect complement to >CyberCash's secure Internet transaction and electronic cash expertise," >said Magdalena Yesil, vice president of marketing for CyberCash. >"Together we can offer a complete array of payment tools that allow >consumers to conduct spontaneous transactions and pay bills via the >Internet." > Checkfree and CyberCash will focus on developing products that can >be easily integrated into any browser system and merchant server. The >new Internet transaction product offering, which will be co-branded by >Checkfree and CyberCash, is scheduled for release this fall. The >product will initially be available free-of-charge via NetCom's >NetCruiser Internet browser as well as other leading Internet browsers. >Merchant interest to date also includes ID Software, the developers of >Doom(TM). > > About CyberCash > CyberCash, Inc. of Reston, Virginia, was founded in August 1994 to >partner with financial institutions and providers of goods and services >to deliver secure Internet payment systems. The CyberCash approach is >based on establishing a trusted link between the seeming unpredictable >world of cyberspace and the traditional banking world. CyberCash serves >as a conduit through which payments can be transported easily, safely >and instantaneously between buyers, sellers and their banks. > The CyberCash system operates on top of any general security system >such as SSL or Secure HTTP. CyberCash beta software is currently >available free-of-charge and can be downloaded from the company's WWW >server at http://www.cybercash.com. The company's initial service that >accepts payments using any major credit card is scheduled for full >commercial deployment this summer. Electronic cash services are >expected by the end of 1995. > CyberCash's principal founders, Bill Melton and Dan Lynch, have >brought together a team with unparalleled experience in credit card and >debit card automation, internet telecommunications and security. In >April, CyberCash was chosen by Interactive Age as one of the 100 Best >Business Web Sites. For further information about CyberCash, access its >WWW server or call 800-9CYBER1. > > About Checkfree > Checkfree Corporation, the nation's leading electronic commerce >company, last year processed more than $6 billion in payments for >consumers and corporate clients, with more than six million consumers >and one million businesses benefiting from its services. Checkfree >serves consumers, business and financial institutions with a wide array >of product and service offerings, each finely tuned to the specific >needs of its users. All leverage Checkfree's extensive technology >infrastructure which includes its patented and proven electronic bill >payment system. Founded in 1981, Checkfree Corporation is headquartered >in Columbus, Ohio, where it employs 370 full-time associates. Checkfree >is privately held. > For additional information about Checkfree, access its worldwide web >server at: http://www.checkfree.com > -0- 7/13/95 >/CONTACT: Jennifer Sims, 415-904-7070, ext. 275 or ><jsims(a)accesspr.com>, or Nicol Davis, 415-904 7070, ext 281, or ><ndavis(a)accesspr.com>, both of Access Public Relations, for Checkfree; >or Susan Ice of Thomas Associates, 415-325-6236, or susani(a)thomaspr.com >for CyberCash, Inc./ > ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Shipwright Development Corporation, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA (617) 323-7923 "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell >>>>Phree Phil: Email: zldf(a)clark.net http://www.netresponse.com/zldf <<<<<

1 0