December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Wearing RSA shirt to school
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Grumpiness warning: I have held my tongue the past few months as all of these "this t-shirt has been declared a munition!!!" messages went out, but I can hold my tongue no longer. At 4:43 AM 9/4/95, Futplex wrote: >I wrote: >> With respect to possession within the U.S., there aren't any >> laws stopping you from waving strong cryptography around wherever you like >> (at least, not yet). > >---- >...and in private email, Jim Ray pointed out that showing the shirt to a >foreign national might technically violate ITAR... Nope, no more so than letting a foreign national read Schneier's book is a violation of the ITAR. If you dispute this, ask whether Schneier's book is banned from export (the book, not the optional diskette). It isn't. Nor are other cryptography _books_ banned from export. I'm not minimizing the issue of export of machine-readable code, as in diskettes. But to claim that a blurry, printed on cotton "barcode" is even remotely in the same class as exporting a workable set of cryptographic system routines, or that letting a furriner merely "gaze upon" this blurry barcode, is a violation of the ITARs is laughable. >Yeah, I suppose I overstated it a bit. It appears that if the ITAR do cover >the shirt (unclear at present, AFAIK -- any news on the CJR, Raph ?), then >flashing it at a furriner could constitute a violation. Thanks for the >correction. No. No more so than "flashing" a copy of a crypto book would constitute a violation. > >The gist of my previous message remains: No local or state authority in the >U.S. (of which I'm aware) classifies strong cryptography as a munition, >weapon, etc. I haven't heard of any restrictions on transporting crypto >across state lines, either. Unless the Feds start cracking down on high >schools, or the Perl-RSA shirt somehow violates some school dress code, (gang >colors ? ;) the original questioner need not fret about his son wearing the >shirt to school. It was this series of posts about whether wearing the "munitions t-shirt" near schools was a crime or not that made me think the silly season had arrived. If the t-shirt is a munition, and books are munitions, then libraries must be real "ammunition dumps," ready to explode at any minute. News at 11. Let's get real. --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Key attributes (was: pseudonyms & list health)
by cman＠communities.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If anyone still has the flyer from the Crypto '95 rump session, there was a guy there talking about ANSI standards, and one of the things he mentioned in his talk was work they were doing on "key attributes." I spoke with him afterwards, and we had a lively discussion about this matter; especially with regard to the relationship between key certification and key attributes. I argued that certification is just another kind of attribute, while he is fairly hung up on certificate hierarchies, etc. (Of course, robust and well-implemented attributes couild be used to implement a hierarchical certification structure if that's what was desired, but there seems to be a deep-seated feeling among crypto folks of a certain ilk that such structure needs to be hard-coded into things.) I'll be following up on this matter with him when I am reuinited with my notes, which made an unintended trip to SF, while I only went to Mountain View. > >I could see such a system initially being piggybacked on PGP keys (the >signatures would not be understandable by PGP though), although for >Chaumian credential transfers the keys have to be specially structured >and that would require a new approach. > >Who would be willing and/or interested enough to use such a system if it >existed? > >Hal

1 0

Re: maximizing cryptographic return
by John A. Limpert 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:49 PM 9/3/95 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >the question of the cost-effectiveness of phone encryption was raised by >my other message. I would like to question how cheaply good encryption >could be done on phones, with a poor quality microprocessor. It doesn't take much of a microprocessor to do real-time encryption and decryption of digitized voice, at least for DES. The problem is the vocoder. A good vocoder needs a fast DSP chip. A custom vocoder chip could cut this cost considerably, look at how cheap data pumps for V.34 modems have become with mass production. If ISDN ever becomes the mass market standard, replacing analog local loops, it would be very inexpensive to add encryption. Even with today's phone system, I can't see why a mass market secure telephone couldn't be built for less than $200. The problem is convincing enough people that they need secure telephones to get that mass market. The secure telephone also needs to be transparent to the users. It should be able to setup a secure connection without requiring the user to press any buttons or know what hardware is at the other end. The voice quality has to be much better than some of the "Donald Duck" quality systems that have been used in the past. -- John A. Limpert johnl(a)Radix.Net

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED AUG. 31, 1997 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz 'Necessary to the security of a free State' J.P. recently wrote: "I agree that things like the court system can be privately funded. ... However, my greatest concern is that a military that has to run a "pledge drive" in order to provision itself would not be capable of posing a credible deterrent to any nations bent on conquering the US. If you could address this point, I would appreciate it. # # # O.K. ... First, the notion that it's all right to steal at gunpoint "some modest amount, as long it serves a legitimate public need" ignores the simple moral truth that the end cannot be allowed to thus justify the means. When I loot your paycheck without your permission to do "good works," I can't possibly know whether that leaves you one dollar short of the money you needed to buy medicine for your dying mother, or one dollar short of the money you needed to complete an experiment that might result in the discovery of a cure for cancer. There is literally no way to measure the opportunities I thus steal from you, and how their potential results might weigh against what (start ital)I(end ital) decide to do with your money. (Even assuming power won't corrupt me until I can blithely assure you that "tobacco subsidies" are "in the public interest.") But on to J.P.'s main point: the need to fund a standing, federal army. The only thing that grants the United States government any legitimacy -- that supposedly differentiates it from some gang of bandits that swarms down from the hills and extracts tribute for as long as the coast seems clear -- is the Constitution. The Constitution would have not have been ratified by enough states to take effect without solemn binding promises that a Bill of Rights would quickly be enacted. Without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution is invalid and of no force. The Bill of Rights prominently features the Second Amendment, which instructs us: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is a founding principle of our nation. Should the national government eviscerate or foreswear that principle, it is not only our right, but our duty, in Jefferson's words, to "alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government." The founding document does not find ANY role for a standing, professional army in preserving "the security of a free state." As a matter of fact, the founders traveled the land, preaching the EVILS of a professional, standing army. And they were right. Our domestic, professional, standing army today consists of individual legions, somewhat on the Roman model but also on the model of the personalized Waffen SS Divisions created as adjuncts to Hitler's Wehrmacht, with personal loyalty oaths sworn to the Fuhrer, and customized uniforms adopted with silver dagger or death's-head totems, etc. Currently going through precisely the kind of expansion and rearming that transformed Hitler's personal bodyguard from the scruffy SA brownshirts of 1934, to the well-armed, professional SS divisions of 1940, our own paramilitary legions are today dubbed "ATF, "FBI," "FBI Hostage Rescue," "DEA," etc. Some of these units now number in the THOUSANDS, and are authorized to deploy COMBAT AIRCRAFT. They routinely train with precisely the kinds of explosives and automatic weapons you or I could go to prison for merely possessing, and practice rapid helicopter deployment and "dynamic entry" into URBAN AREAS. These guys are not just getting ready to investigate the next Lindbergh kidnapping. Can such outfits exist in parallel with a strong citizen militia? They WILL not, and they are currently demonstrating this to us in spades, by infiltrating with agents provocateurs every legitimate citizen militia unit they can find, framing the leaders on amorphous "conspiracy" charges, and sending them away for decades. As they say in the popular sword and costume series, "There can be only one." But what is equally important, is to realize that a citizen militia is ADEQUATE to defend the security of a free state, even against the largest, most powerful, most technologically advanced power in the world. George Washington proved this in 1781. And for anyone who harbored the illusion that "conditions have so changed in 200 years" that this was no longer the case, the Vietnamese and then the Afghans successively proved it again, in our own lifetimes. Next time: Do we need a standing army, at all? Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin(a)lvrj.com. The web site for the Suprynowicz column is at http://www.nguworld.com/vindex/. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin(a)lvrj.com "A well-regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the Government to keep and destroy arms shall not be infringed."

1 0

RE: Key attributes (was: pseudonyms & list health)
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

cman(a)communities.com (Douglas Barnes) writes: > If anyone still has the flyer from the Crypto '95 rump session, > there was a guy there talking about ANSI standards, and one of > the things he mentioned in his talk was work they were doing on > "key attributes." > I spoke with him afterwards, and we had a lively discussion about > this matter; especially with regard to the relationship between > key certification and key attributes. I argued that certification is > just another kind of attribute, while he is fairly hung up on > certificate hierarchies, etc. Did he perchance work for some US Federal Agency such as NIS&T? Or a large corporation? My small PGP key was created at the National Computer Security Conference in 1992. About half the attendees were NSA, and lots more were from assorted defense and civilian agancies. During the free time, I talked to a bunch of them about Phil's web of trust. I had a really hard time understanding with where they were comming from, and they had no clue as to why I thought hierarchical CA chains are so bad. I didn't convince anyone. But I have come to understand that if you spend your entire working life in a job that is structured from the President on down a heirarchy, you can't imagine any other organizational structure. This includes the obvious LEAs such as FBI, ATF, all the Defense folks and sppoks like CIA, DIA, NSA, and the standards "setting" folks out at NIS&T. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student http://www.isse.gmu.edu/students/pfarrell Info. Systems & Software Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA PGP key available on homepage #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

CPAC/Sewer/XtatiX Continues to Brew
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fwd from alt.censorship: Another unhappy customer of CPAC. Stephen Hopkins writes: > Some time ago, an organisation called CPAC, the murky Child > Protection and Advocacy Coalition decided to crusade > against certain so-called "boy-lover" sites on the > Internet, with the aim of getting them shut down. The > organisation, headed by one Anne Cox- -who refuses to > identify the organisations comprising CPAC--identified some > black-listed sites, of which my own, > http://www.stadiou.demon.co.uk, is one of them. Actually, the Lovely and Talented Ms. Cox is far too shrewd to actually libel people on her organization's home page, so she generally links to other sites performing this function, while maintaining a discreet distance behind an appropriate disclaimer. Two months ago, I wouldn't have known CPAC from a hole in the ground. Today, quite a few people have come to know the organization and its various shills, largely because of their attempts at "Ideological Cleansing" on the World Wide Web. I had a pretty good idea what the organizational agenda was when I saw the name Debbie Mahoney, who most Usenetters remember from the Nikki Craft frivolities. Half a dozen screws short of a fully connected brain, even on her better days, and an agenda and a bag of dirty tricks that would have made Richard Nixon jealous. > I feel almost honoured that my on-line activities have > attracted this much interest, but in including it on a > list of "child molestors" and "pedophiles" CPAC attribute > far more importance to it than it deserves. Most of CPAC's visible agenda is pretty reasonable. It's the part about harrassing legal First Ammendment protected speech on the Net, based on their perception of the sexual orientation of the people engaging in it, because supposedly such people might *SOMEDAY* commit a crime, that is a bit of a civil liberties stretch. Like most Dworks, they believe in "voodoo molestation," where unnamed children thousands of miles away are vicariously "exploited" should a single stranger have "impure thoughts" about them by looking at even innocuous photographs, or should accurate depictions of childhood sexuality be permitted in mainstream media. They are getting their nonsense written into the law one tiny step at a time, the Hatch "synthetic sexual depictions of minors" smoke and mirrors being their latest accomplishment. > Jim Tradwick, a San Antonio, Texas businessman, can testify > to the tactics of vigilante censors. Tradwick runs XtatiX, > a small Texas based company offering Web space to > individuals and companies. In June he found himself on the > receiving end of hate e-mails and harassing phone calls. > The U.S. Customs threatened to confiscate his computer > systems for investigation, and the San Antonio police > threatened to take away his young son. What's really amazing is how much under the table support the anti-civil liberties agenda gets from LEAs and agencies of the Federal Government. With Civil Forfeiture laws reversing the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and helpful government agencies attempting to apply pressure to suspected "Thought Criminals," it becomes very difficult for the typical business owner to avoid capitulating to these folks. > Had Tradwick been caught dabbling with child pornography? > Or had he perhaps allowed his systems to be used by a > pedophile ring? Twice no. His only "crime", that so > infuriated CPAC, was to host a gay site called "Free > Spirits" (http://www.ivan.net/fs) abou t attraction to > teenagers, which included articles written by gay teens > themselves. > But Cox, along with her ally--a retired police officer > called Mike Paladino obsessed with sexual perversion--and > his contingent of jackbooted thugs, decreeded that Free > Spirits was beyond the pale. And thus Tradwick found himself > on the receiving end of harassment, hate mail, and even > death threats against his son. Paladino isn't just a retired police officer, he is a retired Police Captain! We're talking management here. He doesn't just wield the ol' "Assault Plunger," he's part of the design team. :) > I made an effort to build bridges between myself and CPAC > by posting what I hoped would be considered reasoned and > reasonable debate on their discussion board. However, even > that was too much, as my access to their forum was > restricted to read-only. I can only conclude that Cox didn't > want reason to interfere with the prevailing views > expressed in the forum. Har! The only rhetorical weapon the Lovely and Talented Ms. Cox needs in her forum is the Delete Key. > So I am circulating, via Usenet, blind e-mail, and BoyChat, > the text of the message I attempted to post to CPAC's forum > under my BoyChat and IRC nickname Rob Walker. I welcome > anyone from CPAC to discuss the points herein, anywhere > they like. I know poste rs to the CPAC forum occasionally > monitor BoyChat, and Usenet groups such as alt.censorship > and others. Unlike other boards, BoyChat does not censor > messages whose sentiment its Webmaster does not agree with. Well, that's very nice, but I think this is a task tantamount to trying to convert the Ayatollah Khomeni to Episcopalianism But I wish you the best of luck in your quest. [CPAC-Censored Social Science Essay Expunged] -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch(a)zipcon.com $ via Finger $ {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}

1 0

Acceptable NIS&T restrictions
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If we can break away from t-shirts as munitions... I'm going to the NIS&T session this week. I'm trying to figure out what, if any, part of the process can be made acceptable to those in favor of bringing US policy into the 90s. I'm not sure that this is possilbe. NIS&T published (and it has been reposted to the list and sci.crypt many times) their goals. Can we make suggestions to any that are acceptable and realistic? Here are some of their criteria: "Avoiding multiple encryption -- How can the product be designed so as to prevent doubling (or tripling, etc.) the key space of the algorithm?" CME has been suggesting DES | TRAN | DES | TRAN | DES for years. Can they really _avoid_ (i.e. prevent) this? "Disabling the key escrow mechanism -- How can products be made resistant to alteration that would disable or circumvent the key escrow mechanism? How can the "static patch" problem be avoided? How can this be tested?" This is easy in hardware. Is it even possible in software? "Practical Key Access -- How can mechanisms be designed so that repeated involvement of escrow agents is not required for decryption for multiple files/messages during the specified access period?" At least this has a chance of being real. We need to have a suggestion for expiration times for the escrowed keys. This was a huge problem with the initial Clipper. Is there a reasonable middle ground between long term keys such as PGP uses, and the ephemeral keys of a D-H exchange? "Certified escrow agents -- Can products be designed so that only escrow agents certified by the U.S. government (domestic, or under suitable arrangements, foreign) are utilized? What should be the criteria for an acceptable U.S. escrow agent?" We all know that Tim's Flakey Key Escrow Service is most likely not "an acceptable US escrow agent." But since CKE is a good thing, what are the characteristics of an acceptable service to us? I've added the discussion "topics" that NIS&T sent to participants to my WWW pages if you want to see them all, http://www.isse.gmu.edu/~pfarrell/nistmeeting.html But I expect that most of the criteria that I edited out are unacceptable to most on this list. Without further discussion. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student http://www.isse.gmu.edu/students/pfarrell Info. Systems & Software Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA PGP key available on homepage #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

None
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:33 PM 8/22/97 -0400, you wrote: >> Great Barrington, MA -- In a recent >> pronouncement, television evangelist and >> head of the Christian Coalition, Pat >> Robertson, advocated death by stoning for >> crypto enthusiasts. Figures. I've never understood this dumb Christian overlooking of how the world actually functions. You don't "stone" people to death anymore, there's other ways to kill them. Second, this "Pat Robertson" is a fascist. >> Robertson used the news of the July 25th >> Senate Commerce Committee hearing to promote >> his extreme beliefs. A segment on the July 27, >> 1997 broadcast of The 700 Club featured news >> of the Senate hearing. Employing the >> historical event as a starting point, the >> program delved into the possibility of the >> existence of anonymous free speech on the >> Internet. Something that should be spread, rather than destroyed, but narrow minded Christians don't seem to get that. >> While Robertson viewed the Internet with >> suspicion, on a more serious note, he >> launched into a diatribe against those who >> entertain the existence of uninhibited free >> speech on the Internet. He said, in a >> rambling discourse, that if such a thing >> existed, it would simply create demons that >> would lead people away from Christ. Lead them away from opression, to freedom. According to this guy, the people who helped stike down the CDA are devils. Also, this clearly shows that this man is a Nazi. >> According to Robertson, the threat is so >> serious that people who believe in free >> speech should be put to death by stoning -- >> according to "God's word." Fuck him. God's word is fascism, hate, narrow-mindedness, and a Big Brother State. He can take his bible and shove it up his ass. >> "The Bible says the Earth belongs to man, >> but the Word belongs to the Lord," >> Robertson said. Sorry, we own earth, and God doesn't exist. >> "He has given us the Earth. He also warned >> us in the book of Matthew of the dangers of >> corrupting forces such as the Internet which >> can be used for evildoers: First of all, this also proves Christians are incabable of making real world arguments, because they rely so heavily on a 1000-page book filled with lies. >> "'A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can >> a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that >> does not bear good fruit is cut down and >> thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their >> fruits you will know them. (Matthew 7:17-20)' I'm not going to bother with cryptic messages sent by a god-loving Nazi. >> "And you see, there is only one Word, and >> that is the Word of God: Bullshit. >> "'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word >> was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)'" >> 'For the Word of the Lord is right; and all his >> works are done with faithfulness. He loveth >> mercy and judgment: the earth is full of the >> mercy of the Lord. (Psalm 32:4-5)' Mercy? How merciful is commiting mass-murder because humans don't fit your bill, god? Second off, cryptic responses aren't worth a shit in arguments. The word of the lord is fascism. >> "Can a demon appear as a slanty-eyed, >> funny-looking computer hacker? No, but I see them all the time in tghe form of men wearing robes with crosses on them, reading from a 1000-page book of lies. >> Of course >> he can, or it can. Of course they can deceive >> people. And if they can lead somebody away >> from the true God, or away from Jesus >> Christ, anyway it happens, it doesn't >> matter, you will lose your salvation. It >> doesn't matter how they get you. The >> question is, did they get you, and under >> what guise? As i said, they don't lure you away from god, they open your eyes, and you grow up and stop the nonsense. >> "This is man in rebellion against God, who >> refuses to take God's Law. And God says, >> 'My covenant says you won't do this. And if >> I find anybody in Israel,'-- "which is his >> pure nation" -- 'If I find anybody in >> Israel that's doing this sort of thing, >> then I want you to take him out and dispose >> of him." That is fascism. Nazi fascism. >> "It's a clear violation of God's word. >> Stone them." That's a clear violation of my rights, shoot that Christian prick. >> Skipp Porteous, Freedom Writer publisher, >> commented: "As the founder and chairman of >> the Christian Coalition -- a group >> dedicated to becoming the most powerful >> political force in America -- Robertson's >> extreme ideas need to be taken seriously, >> for they not only negate pluralism, but >> condemn to death those who dare to believe >> differently." Which is fascism. Nazi fascism. This loser makes Communism sound good, considering it outlaws religion. This post has moved me considerably. Some parts of his speech requires a response that words could not adequately describe. This speech of his outlines in entirety the Christian Agenda. Enslaving, murder of those different, intolerance, fascism. If Christians try to stone anyone, they should be shot right away. Freedom-Thru-AtheismMonger "Your god is DEAD!!! And no one cares!!! If there is a hell, I'll see you there!!!!!" - Nine Inch Nails, "Heresy"

1 0

Re: Cyphernomicon, and a section on Escrow and Reputations
by dsc＠swcp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I finished my first release, a megabyte-sized file done in MORE, a powerful >outline processor (which enabled me to maintain notes, make >cross-references, and generally manage such a huge writing project). I >released it last year, and put it in my anonymous ftp account at >ftp.netcom.com, in the directory /pub/tc/tcmay, as the file CP-FAQ. Netcom >is often very crowded, though. After several tries I was not able to get this. Has anyone made it available in an alternate location? Dar (list newbie) =========================================================== Dar Scott Home phone: +1 505 299 9497 Dar Scott Consulting Voice: +1 505 299 5790 <--- 8637 Horacio Place NE Email: darscott(a)aol.com Albuquerque, NM 87111 dsc(a)swcp.com Fax: +1 505 898 6525 http://www.swcp.com/~correspo/DSC/DarScott.html My preference for attached files are in this order: AOL, Mime, Binhex4, PGP, UUencode ===========================================================

3 2

Re: Breaking Legal News.... (fwd)
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>The American legal system has spun out of control. I don't argue that she >should not have the right to sue...everybody does. But a judge can quickly >dismiss a case on a matter of law. According to the Mercury-News, the suit has been dismissed. <http://www.sjmercury.com/news/breaking/docs/016909.htm> -- Greg Broiles gbroiles(a)c2.net 510-986-8770 x 309 voice ** please note phone number has changed ** 510-986-8777 fax

1 0