December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Freezing assets
by anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How does the U.S. government go about freezing the assets of foreign nationals? Which kinds of assets are the most and least amenable to freezing? By what legal and procedural mechanisms does one "freeze" the securities, real estate, etc. of foreign nationals? thanks, zylof

1 0

Re: CAST key size (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from Peter Gutmann ----- >From cpunks Mon Aug 25 08:03:32 1997 From: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) To: hvdl(a)sequent.com Subject: Re: CAST key size Reply-To: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz X-Charge-To: pgut001 X-Authenticated: relaymail v0.9 on cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz Date: Mon, 25 Aug 1997 23:39:58 (NZST) Message-ID: <87250919812278(a)cs26.cs.auckland.ac.nz> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk >Just a quick question on the keysize of the CAST algorithm. According to >the bible of Bruce, CAST uses a 64 bit keysize, while in the manual of >PGP 5.0 (page 89), Phill states that CAST uses a 128 bit keysize... > >Am I missing something? "CAST" isn't a particular algorithm, but a design process for creating algorithms. The particular CAST instantiation used in PGP 5 is either CAST-128 or CAST5, depending on who you ask. Other versions of CAST abound, including an earlier one used by MS for unknown purposes which had a 64-bit key, probably the one Bruce is referring to. Peter. ----- End of forwarded message from Peter Gutmann -----

1 0

hello
by Alexis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there anybody that can tutor me how to hack, crack, phrank, and cryptomography ( i'm not sure i speel that last part correctly. I would like to get some help, please email me back ASAP thank you so very much recall.

2 1

DoJ press release on Bernstein case (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from John Gilmore ----- >From cpunks Tue Aug 26 23:08:09 1997 Message-Id: <199708270251.TAA15101(a)toad.com> X-Authentication-Warning: toad.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: bernstein-announce(a)toad.com Subject: DoJ press release on Bernstein case Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 19:51:24 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Reply-To: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk Forwarded-by: Shari Steele <ssteele(a)eff.org> Department of Justice For Immediate Release Tuesday, August 26, 1997 CIV (202) 616-2777 TDD (202) 514-1888 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT STILL REVIEWING DISTRICT COURT DECISION ON EXPORT CONTROLS ON ENCRYPTION SOFTWARE WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Justice Department said today it is considering what further legal measures it will take following yesterday's ruling by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco that certain aspects of the government's regulations on the export of encryption software are unconstitutional. Another federal court upheld the export controls on encryption software. The Administration is committed to promoting the legitimate use of encryption. Through encryption--or the coding of messages--businesses can protect trade secrets, hospitals can safeguard medical records, and individuals can be assured that personal messages on the information superhighway remain private. But, as President Clinton stated upon issuing an Executive Order on this subject on November 15, 1996, the use of encryption products by unfriendly parties outside the United States can jeopardize the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States, and public safety of U.S. citizens. Judicial proceedings in Bernstein v. Department of State are not yet concluded, and the decision governs only that case. In March 1996, in another pending case in Washington, D.C., Karn v. Department of State, the District Court ruled that export controls on encryption software are constitutional under the First Amendment and serve important interests of the United States. That case is still pending to consider export controls on encryption now administered by the Commerce Department. Until this issue is resolved, export controls on encryption software remain in place. Individuals or companies wishing to export encryption software by any means must continue to adhere to applicable export licensing controls on such software before exporting it abroad. ### 97-351 ----- End of forwarded message from John Gilmore -----

1 0

Crypto Export Restrictions are Unconstitutional (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from John Gilmore ----- >From cpunks Tue Aug 26 13:46:02 1997 Message-Id: <199708261734.KAA06596(a)toad.com> X-Authentication-Warning: toad.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: bernstein-announce(a)toad.com Subject: Crypto Export Restrictions are Unconstitutional Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 10:34:53 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Reply-To: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk CRYPTO EXPORT RESTRICTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL Professor Bernstein is free to publish his software San Francisco, August 26, 1997 - The Federal District Court here struck down Commerce Department export restrictions on the privacy technology called encryption yesterday, concluding that "the encryption regulations are an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." For the first time, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel ordered the government not to prosecute or harass the plaintiff, Professor Daniel Bernstein, and those who use or publish his encryption software. The decision knocks out a major part of the Clinton Administration's effort to force companies to design government surveillance into computers, telephones, and consumer electronics. "This is wonderful news," said Prof. Bernstein. "I hope I can get some of my ideas published before they change the law again." The decision is a victory for free speech, academic freedom, human rights, and the prevention of crime. American scientists and engineers will now be free to collaborate with others in the United States and in foreign countries. This will enable them to build a new generation of tools for protecting the privacy and security of our communications. "Once again, it took a federal court to sort out technology and the Constitution," said Lori Fena, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which backed the suit. "Let this decision signal the other two branches of government that when making laws pertaining to the Internet, they must honor their oaths to uphold the Constitution." The decision is strategic because the Clinton Administration has been using the export restrictions to influence domestic privacy policy. Companies that agree to build "key recovery" technology into their products are exempt from most of the restrictions. Key recovery, a follow-on to the Clipper Chip, is designed to give the government untraceable access to users' private information. The Federal District Court of the Northern District of California last December struck down the ITAR, a set of encryption restrictions enforced by the State Department. A few weeks later, the Government created virtually identical restrictions in the Commerce Department's Bureau of Export Administration (BXA). Yesterday's decision invalidates the new restrictions, stating, "the encryption regulations issued by the BXA appear to be even less friendly to speech interests than the ITAR." She warns that "the government cannot avoid the constitutional deficiencies of its regulations by rotating oversight of them from department to department," though concluding that she "does not believe that such was the intent here." "Our right to create, use, and deploy encryption come from our basic civil rights of free speech, freedom of the press, freedom from arbitrary search, due process of law, and privacy. Judge Patel has affirmed those roots in the First Amendment," philosophizes John Gilmore, Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder. "Our Founding Fathers used encryption -- and even invented some -- and did not intend any ``crypto exceptions'' to the Bill of Rights." DETAILS OF MONDAY'S DECISION In the heart of the ruling, "The court declares that the Export Administration Regulations . . . insofar as they apply to or require licensing for encryption and decryption software and related devices and technology, are in violation of the First Amendment on the grounds of prior restraint and are, therefore, unconstitutional as discussed above, and shall not be applied to plaintiff's publishing of such items, including scientific papers, algorithms or computer programs." The Court also held that the government's licensing procedure fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards. When the Government acts legally to suppress protected speech, it must reduce the chance of illegal censorship by the bureacrats involved, for example by making the government go to a judge to decide the issue. The EAR does not require this; in fact, it precludes it. "And most important, and most lacking, are any standards for deciding an application. The EAR reviews applications for licenses ``on a case-by-case basis'' and appears to impose no limits on agency discretion." The Court dissected the export controls' exemption for printed materials at length, calling it "so irrational and administratively unreliable that it may well serve to only exacerbate the potential for self-censorship." The government's "distinction between paper and electronic publication . . . makes little or no sense and is untenable." The Court not only declared that these regulations are invalid and unenforceable, but also prevented the Government from "threatening, detaining, prosecuting, discouraging, or otherwise interfering with plaintiff or any other person described . . . above in the exercise of their federal constitutional rights as declared in this order." The immediate effect of this decision is that Prof. Bernstein may publish his encryption software, and that others may read, use, publish and review it. In addition, others in industry are studying the court's analysis, and might decide to publish their own software on the Internet as well. Pretty Good Privacy, Inc, is one such company, which believes that future courts will find Judge Patel's reasoning persuasive. "We are particularly pleased the court has reconfirmed that computer programs, like other literary works, are accorded full protection under the First Amendment," said Bob Kohn, vice president and general counsel for Pretty Good Privacy. The final form of the judgment will be negotiated between the parties, and presented to the court within a week. The government could either seek an emergency appeal of the injunction, or take up to 60 days from the entry of judgment to appeal. ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS Lead counsel on the case is Cindy Cohn of the San Mateo law firm of McGlashan & Sarrail, who is offering her services pro bono. Major additional legal assistance is being provided by Shari Steele of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; Lee Tien of Berkeley; James Wheaton and Elizabeth Pritzker of the First Amendment Project in Oakland; and Robert Corn-Revere of the Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information. EFF is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and helped to collect members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is available from EFF's online archives at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ Scanned images of Monday's decision are available at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ Legal/970825_decision.images/ The full text of Monday's decision will soon be available at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ Legal/970825.decision Professor Daniel Bernstein will be building his new Constitutionally- protected cryptography web page at: http://pobox.com/~djb/crypto.html Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Attorney 301/375-8856, ssteele(a)eff.org John Gilmore, Founding Board Member 541/354-6541, gnu(a)toad.com Cindy Cohn, McGlashan & Sarrail 415/341-2585, cindy(a)mcglashan.com ----- End of forwarded message from John Gilmore -----

1 0

Bernstein decision is out! (fwd)
by Cypherpunks Maintenance Account 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----- Forwarded message from John Gilmore ----- >From cpunks Tue Aug 26 09:26:49 1997 Message-Id: <199708261312.GAA02742(a)toad.com> X-Authentication-Warning: toad.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't use HELO protocol To: bernstein-announce(a)toad.com, gnu(a)toad.com Subject: Bernstein decision is out! Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 06:12:24 -0700 From: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Reply-To: John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk Judge Patel has made her decision, and it is up on the Web at http://www.eff.org/. We're still preparing the legal analysis, but the basic outline is that she declares the Commerce Dept. export-control scheme unconstitutional. She also issued an injunction against the Commerce Dept. preventing them from enforcing these regulations against Prof. Bernstein or others who distribute his software. More details later... John Gilmore ----- End of forwarded message from John Gilmore -----

1 0

Snuffle '97 Released / Re: Reuter on Bernstein Ruling
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Duvos wrote: > > Patel also issued a permanent injunction barring the government > > from enforcing the regulations against plaintiff Daniel Bernstein or anyone > > who sought to use, discuss or publish his encryption program. > Now that Snuffle has been around for a while, it's obviously time for > an upgrade. Might I suggest "Snuffle '95" with the DES, 3DES, RC5, > and IDEA options. I just uploaded "Snuffle '97" to replay.com. The new version includes source code for PGP 5.0, a JPEG of Hillary Clinton in the nude, and the predicted date of death for the lawyer who files the government appeal in the Bernstein case. Saddam Hussein liked "Snuffle '97" so much, he bought the company! SnuffleMonger

1 0

Re: Stewart Baker on Bernstein encryption decision (fwd)
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

V.Z.Nuri wrote, in reaction to Stewar Baker's message: >*spit* [...] fraudulent camel's back. soon let the whole corrupt >structure fall like the rotten house of cards that it is. [...] >SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT, even as they >wallow daily in their own hypocrisy. > >[...]the horrid and repulsive episode [...] >when in the course of human events it become necessary to expunge a >parasite... [...] >(if so, it would be the one of the least vile and sleazy tactics employed >so far in the whole sorry affair.) > >[...] sarcastic contempt I feel for you and your despicable cohorts [...] .......................................... Like, have you tried to export software lately, L.D.? You're taking this rather personally. Your heart-felt, warm&fuzzy message to Mr. Baker, who doesn't know you from anyone (except that you posted from that scum-bag pot of cypherpunk-infestation (those poisonous tentacles of Medusa), I'm sure will instill in him a deep regret for his past attitude; he'll probably recant his past, become a born-again Christian, and join the list. Eloquent, informative statements from other noteworthy representatives of the technology industry, spoken even at meetings where Mr. Baker was personally present, and even directly to him by the likes of TCM, could not, I'm sure be as persuasive as the *spit*ting and lowly modifying terms which you slew in his direction. An intellectually uplifting debate on the subject, bringing into view incontestable points of fact, could not surely be as convincing as this upchuck of verbiage from deep within yourself, where you keep your stash of special words selected for their ability to clarify difficult issues. Goodness, next you'll be agreeing with TCM that "they should all be nuked". You might even begin consider a special venue for achieving this, such as.........Blacknet? .. Blanc

2 1

Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

William H. Geiger III: >In the Salem witch trial they were government trials (which were >based on >a political power struggle in Salem at the time) not lynch mobs. And how about our gun-crazy friend, who'd shoot anybody who messed with him, his family, or his property. What do you think he's going to do when that witch down the street puts a hex on his cow and it dies? Sounds to me like we've got another shooting coming. Is that the kind of world you want to live in? "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Re: Socio-Economic Cults (Re: Cypherpunk Cults)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Sean Roach <roach_s(a)alph.swosu.edu> wrote: >>Afterwards, a compensation arrangement is made between your >>protection company and the protection company of your victim. >Also, according to what I remember, the "protection company" was your >extended family. Pay up or face the wraith of all the deceased's >cousins, nephews, uncles, neices, aunts, maybe his kids. This seems to have been a common case, but it was not the rule. There were a limited number of franchises available for protection companies. Protection franchises were bought and sold like any other business. Like businesses, some did well and grew in size and value under the care of their stewards and others did not. The ability to change protection companies at will is important - it's what distinguishes this system from feudal "protection" systems where the "clients" are actually serfs. The Icelandic idea of the extended family did not map precisely to ours. Divorces were easily and commonly arranged. There was a lot of turnover and a lot of half-siblings around. There were some interesting adoption customs, too. People sometimes adopted children they liked, even if the parents were still living. This did not mean that the children didn't continue to live with the natural parents. But the adopting parent would help out here and there. (In "Njal's Saga", for example, an adopting parent beats up people for his adopted daughter and this causes no end of trouble.) Just Another Cypherpunk -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNASrX/+1rw4IkyBFAQGkcgf/UPot2diIVhohhip4CQDpUnGdZZA9TCK6 OPAsNb01CekDk8fv0SThudb9jSf5/QFEkZ6OM/ts2f5hbpxwGx6zC+sMJ9oo+LsI 4odgrR2lbwdikgMBDoJ3FcJMOF9bKLnUPYBUUc/RwPP0b7Jj8FEfDxURu+yHAUR7 VRRxmtyWMHSp7j+2Ngz8Idu7CJHqUfekcuSdPKank3QaXO9nEDDnWsoWK94UWBrh ZJPYo1D1TgdP/0LxjoU4FH2Tq9AZYVrZ8jxXxDShzS2mVR9jhGu31HBcQ/povEYC w/BoG/6kA59bmfvV8odU/q5CM9vFuJmLb8Swtc7YZXal5a6v2KX5+g== =MFgT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0