December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)
by koontz＠MasPar.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Even scarier is the Storm Trooper Exception (ala Steve Jackson): (j) Privacy Protection Act: Section 101 of the Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 2000aa) is amended-- (1) in subsection (a)-- (A) by striking `or' at the end of paragraph (1); (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting `; or'; and (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: `(3) there is reason to believe that the immediate seizure of such materials is necessary to prevent the destruction or altercation of such documents.'; and (2) in subsection (b)-- (A) by striking `or' at the end of paragraph (3); (B) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (4) and inserting `; or'; and (C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph: `(5) in the case of electronically stored data, the seizure is incidental to an otherwise valid seizure, and the government officer or employee-- `(A) was not aware that work product material was among the data seized; `(B) upon actual discovery of the existence of work product materials, the government officer or employee took reasonable steps to protect the privacy interests recognized by this section, including-- `(i) using utility software to seek and identify electronically stored data that may be commingled or combined with non-work product material; and `(ii) upon actual identification of such material, taking reasonable steps to protect the privacy of the material, including seeking a search warrant.'.

1 0

Steganography Mailing List
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For those who are interested: A Steganography mailing list was created. The mail server is in Germany, but we decided to talk english on the list. Details can be found on http://www.thur.de/ulf/stegano/ Hadmut

1 0

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:20 PM 7/12/95 -0400, Brian A. LaMacchia wrote: >Finally, we begin to see the attack on all forms of un-escrowed >encryption. The bill provides an affirmable defense of >giving the keys to the government ahead of time! > > `(c) It shall be an affirmative defense to prosecution under this > section that the software at issue used a universal decoding device > or program that was provided to the Department of Justice prior to > the distribution.'. We'll just supply the feds with some of the key testing code developed for collective cracking of RSA-129 or RC4. That code is "a universal decoding device or program." All it takes is a few years... <g> DCF "Since the Occupational Safety and Health Administration started 'protecting' us, there has been no significant decline in work place injuries."

2 1

Re: LOU_nex
by Bob Billson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Black Unicorn <access.digex.net!unicorn> wrote: >> Kahoe, who was an official at F.B.I. headquarters during >> the Idaho siege, sent a shock wave through the agency's >> upper ranks. > >Lemme guess, suspended to the Bahamas while the promotion committee meets. ...soon to be followed with retirement at full government pension.

1 0

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)
by Weld Pond 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: ---------------Original Message--------------- We'll just supply the feds with some of the key testing code developed for collective cracking of RSA-129 or RC4. That code is "a universal decoding device or program." All it takes is a few years... <g> DCF ----------End of Original Message---------- That raises an interesting issue. How difficult to use or how time consuming can a program or method be to be considered "a universal decoding device or program." Can I give the feds a program that will crack my messages in a few days when run on one of their supercomputers? If this is not acceptable what will be their rational? Will they have to invent a huge new bureaucracy to manage all these devices and programs? Theoretically, every person in the US could submit many different devices and programs. One could bank on the feds losing or misplacing your program if they were innundated enough. Can you destroy your only copy of the "universal decoding program" after giving them their copy? Does every message or file I encrypt need a cleartext header that describes which of my escrowed devices or programs wil decrypt it? There are many problems with this idea of Government Access to Devices or Programs (GADOP). A toolset that could build many different encryption and decryption variations based on psuedo-random input may be a good tool to fight this nonsense. Weld Pond - weld(a)l0pht.com - http://www.l0pht.com/~weld L 0 p h t H e a v y I n d u s t r i e s Technical archives for the people - Bio/Electro/Crypto/Radio

1 0

Anti-Everything-Ever Act
by tbyfield＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Grassley's latest nonsense has got me thinking again about the rapidly rising demonization of computers/networks/the net/etc. Remarks like... >the wire fraud statute which has been successfully used by prosecutors for >many use[r]s, will be amended to make fraudulent schemes which use computers >a crime. ...boggle the mind, since it'd be all but impossible to commit wire fraud _without_ involving a "computer." The obvious effect of legislation crafted according this kind of pseudo-thought would/will be to ensure that there's a very firm line between, bluntly, haves and have-nots--"haves" being those who are exempted by various legal machinations from this ever-expanding universe of recriminalizations of the same old actions. If Arthur commits wire fraud, he's making use of telcos' "computers" and wires to commit fraud; is his action qualitatively different if he uses NetPhone or Maven to accomplish exactly the same deed? If he uses a 12-yr-old answering machine in the process, he probably isn't using a "computer" to commit wire fraud; but if he uses a brand-new digital machine, or his kids got him a Compaq Presario, and he uses it for voice mail--he probably _is_ using a "computer." It can't reasonably be argued that the use of newer technology has any effect whatsoever--but it can of course be legislated. We're seeing more and more of this addle-headed legislation coming down the pike, and more and more of it will eventually become law: the effect, above all, will be to make just about any use of a computer potentially quite dangerous. For example, lying about your income on a credit card application is, I'm told, potential bank fraud; if things continue as they are, soon enough Mary could get slapped with yet another charge for printing answers on her dishonest application rather than writing them by hand. That isn't in any legislation I've seen, but how far off can it be? I know, I know, I'm preaching to the choir... Why? I'm going to start working on an essay (and if the wind blows right, it'll be an op-ed) about this hazy question--not that op-eds have much effect. :( Anyway, if any of y'all have archived remarks by various Kongress types, pointers, dim memories about spectacularly stupid statements, please send them my way off list: the essay's going to focus not on legislation per so but, rather, on the remarks that'll show how little these guys understand and how dangerous their incomprehension is. Much obliged, Ted

1 0

DefCon roomshare?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone interested in sharing a room at DefCon? I'm fairly unobtrusive, don't smoke, and am neat enough to live with for a few days. :) Also, I'm looking for a (English text) letter frequency table. Anyone have one online? Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty I Support The Phil of any kind is lost all at Zimmermann legal defense fund once." -Hume http://www.netresponse.com/zldf ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [001/713] ------------------- M4$L#!!0````(`">9ZQX3(*,_DG8!`-JF`P`'````4$=0+D581>S;=UQ3U__X M\9M!$E8,TT(a)PJ$10$1=*41%WW`KX$=Q[M5KK`&R%(HH+(T.M"S>NME8K=31N M:A$[K+5(K:O5BE405ZE:1"3?UTW`:K_]\/G\?O_^?CX>3^_-S;GGO,^\`^@W ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

2 1

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995
by mclow＠coyote.csusm.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

No one seems to have pointed this out, so: (maybe it's obvious to everyone else) > "Sec. 1030A. Racketeering-related crimes involving computers > "(a) It shall be unlawful-- > > . . . > > "(2) to distribute computer software that encodes or encrypts > electronic or digital communications to computer networks that the > person distributing knows, or reasonably should know, is accessible to > foreign nationals and foreign governments, regardless of whether such > software has been designated nonexportable." > IANAL, but it seems to me that if I EMAIL a copy of PGP to, say, Tim May, that I have just "distributed computer software .... to a computer network ...accessible to foreign nationals ..." even though it was "private" e-mail. Comments, anyone? Anyone? Bueller? ;-) >Get a copy of this bill from: > ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c104/s974.is.FTP >and read it. > Betcher ass. -- Marshall "The constitution. It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than what we've got."

3 2

LD tentacle?
by an215712＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

has anyone heard of John Bass? based on this recent message, in which he melodramatically tries to stir the shit on a RMIUG list (rocky mountain internet user group) I wonder if L.D. is in fact a John Bass tentacle, or vice versa... From: jbass(a)dmsd.com (John L. Bass) To: rmiug-discuss(a)xor.com Subject: The legacy of Ted Smith's, Gary Anderson's, and Mary Newell's actions. The legacy of Ted Smith's, Gary Anderson's, Mary Newell's, and possibly Scott Crawford's (since it was difficult to figure out which side he was on) un-ethical postings combined with inaction of the elected and natural leaders of RMIUG will reflect poorly on the group and it's leaders for years to come. This legacy includes the inaction of the entire readership of rmiug-discuss as well (with the exception of Gabe who is a guest reader from the east coast). Leadership has a number of grave responsibilities and difficult choices - the foremost of which is the preservation of ethical and moral behavior in the group - to protect the reputation of the BOTH group and it's elected and natural leadership. In some instances, none of the available options may be popular - but in-action is by far a greater failing. I deeply regret the events which have unfolded over the last two weeks. Making 10 of 31 posts in a group of 11 posters regarding the MS topic of 6/29 should not be a capital offense. Nor should questioning a board members assertions about the use of the list in the face of historical usage. Nor should questioning the tollarance of highly unethical private and public attacks upon posters. On the 29th I heeded Aleks request after reading it, and made a single additional post. As Gabe noted, we were already winding the debate down. Unfortunately, the several 1-2 hour delivery time of rmiug-discuss delayed Alek's comments. I'm am deeply disappointed that the lessons learned from the last two weeks have come at a great cost to all. I am more concerned the examples set here by Ted Smith, Gary Anderson, and Mary Newell may greatly limit discussion and participation in RMIUG. Each of you *IS* RMIUG. As a group your ethical, intellectual, and moral guidance and leadership can not be ignored in difficult or unpopular times. Many have choosen in the last 3 days to vote with their feet out of disgust. While they can distance themselves from the unpleasant events this way, it is just another form of failing to take more positive steps - maybe out of fear of being targeted themselves. I have many questions about why rmiug at nearly 700 people was unable to maintain a higher level of content (and traffic) as a tool to augment the learning curve of the many new comers to the internet, expand the horizons of all, and form the dialog to bind the readership into a effective functioning group. A highly sucessful topic in a large diverse group this size will only have the interest of 10-30% of the readership, just as the meetings do not benefit and attract the entire group each month. A topic that produces content from 7 posters over 26 messages should not create a fire. A good highly successful topic which really involves the readership, might draw comment from 1% of the readership, some 60-70 people, and include maybe a hundred or two posts. And several at the same time, even more. Expecting the ACCEPTABLE volume of the list to remain under 3-4 per day is a great burden on the usefulness of this list. One difficultly has been that some readers use ISP's and BBS's with extremely small quota's and read their mailbox's infrequently. They have been extremely frustrated at their mbox/quota overflowing from traffic around 50-100KB/wk. For others it has been the relatively poor user interface of some mail readers which limits their ability to select the articles they wish to read. It is hard sometimes to understand the small quota's in the face of disk space costing less than $.30-.50/MB. Maybe one project of this group should be to help find/provide entry level members better access and tools at a nominal or free cost. Dispite Ted Smith's slander and assertions to the contrary, I bring some objectiveness and experience to issues many would prefer to ignore. I loathe the current PC vogue to avoid conflict at all costs - - often with thick sarcasm and an unwillingness to listen to conflicting view points. I am direct, up front, listen well, accept "constructive criticism", and enjoy reasoned civil debate. I have the highest respect for someone who can present/defend their views with a reasoned arguement based upon fact and experience, and in the face of equally reasoned arguements also based upon fact and experience, augment/change their position or possibly agree to disagree when no common ground exists. I've been active some dozen times as the leading exec member of both professional and civic orgs. I last ran a SF Bay area unix users group known as UNIOPS/Silicon Valley Net(SVNet) for over 3 years almost single handledly - including printing and addressing as much as 2000-4000 meeting announcements for bulk mail each month. With current and early breaking topics and speakers I was often capacity limited by the 800 seat room ... often standing room only. When I moved it took me a year, and going dark twice, before I could find a team willing to take over the burden and continue what I had started. Before that I ran two different groups with semi-annual international Unix conferences with between 300 and 1000 attendees as "West Coast Unix Users Group" at SRI International (formerly Standford Research Institute) and as UNIOPS (before helping found /USR/GROUP now known as UNIFORM). I also spent two years on the /usr/group UNIX standards committe as the "Extentions Sub-committe Chairman". Both concurrent and prior to that I did my duty as board member of several Square Dance Clubs and Campus orgs. My public life has been second to my family for the last 7 years. I suspect in part, the hostility here results from a previous unpopular dispute where I called for the resignation of Guy Cook after having CSN drop all the mail for dmsd.com on the floor for many weeks, and then publicly deny that CSN had done so (as well as a number of other management failings at CSN). Guy and CSN have come a long way in the year and a half since, to become probably the best ISP in the state. The road was rocky, but all have learned from the experience, and I hope moved forward, including I. John L. Bass FYI: rmiug-discuss volume by day from 5/18 to present. 30 |-------+---------+---------+---------+----#----+------ | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 25 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 20 |-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+#----- | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | 15 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | # | | | | | | 10 |-------+---------+---------+---------+---------+------ | # | | | | # | | | | | | | | | | | # | # | | | # # | | 5 | | | | | # | #|# # | |# | | | # # | ## | # | | | # | | # |# ## | # | # #| |# ## | | # | # # | # # | # 0 +----#--+-#--##--##-----####+-##-#---###-#----#-+------ 112222222222330000000001111111111222222222230000000001 890123456789011234567890123456789012345678901234567890 May June July 0000 0000 00 00 00 00 0 000 0 0300 00210000 Group `#' 1211 3494 42 33 21322 64 1 621 1 2071 25029713 Volume *** You received this message because you are on an RMIUG email list *** *** Send email to rmiug(a)rmiug.org for RMIUG & subscription information *** ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help(a)anon.penet.fi. If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this. Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin(a)anon.penet.fi.

1 0

full text of the Facism bill
by perry＠imsi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Full text of the "Facism In America" bill, called by its purveyors an "anti-racketeering" bill, can be found in... ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/c104/s974.is.FTP .pm

1 0