December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

<<Vitamin B>>(August 27, 1997) Back to the Future
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Lotus-FromDomain: BIONOMICS@INTERLIANT @ OUTBOUND From: "VitaminB"<VitaminB(a)bionomics.org> To: "DAILY DOSE"<DAILY_DOSE(a)maxager.com> Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 11:04:00 -0700 Subject: <<Vitamin B>>(August 27, 1997) Back to the Future Mime-Version: 1.0 Vitamin B: Your Daily Dose of Bionomics August 27, 1997 Back to the Future "In the pre-Civil War period, when the general ethos of laissez faire severely discouraged government intervention in the market economy, private regulations arose in the form of a variety of institutions, which accomplished much of what we endeavor to do today with our elaborate system of government rule making and supervision. In particular, scholars have noted that the period saw the development of private measures to help holders of bank notes protect themselves from risk. As the notes were not legal tender, there was no obligation to accept the currency of a suspect bank, or to accept it at par value; accordingly, notes often were accepted and cleared at less than par. As a result, publications--bank note reporters--were established to provide current information on market rates for notes of different banks based on their creditworthiness, reputation, and location, as well as to identify counterfeit notes. Bank note brokers created a ready market for notes of different credit quality. In some areas, private clearinghouses were established, which provided incentives for self-regulation. " "Banks competed for reputation, and advertised high capital ratios to attract depositors. Capital to asset ratios in those days often exceeded one-third. One must keep in mind that then, as now, a significant part of safety and soundness regulations came from market forces and institutions. Government regulation is an add-on that tries to identify presumed market failures and, accordingly, substitute official rules to fill in the gaps. " "To be sure, much of what developed in that earlier period was primitive and often ineffectual. But the financial system itself was just beginning to evolve. " "From today's presumably far more sophisticated view of such matters, we may look askance at what we have often dismissed as 'wildcat banking.' But it should not escape our notice that, as the international financial system becomes ever more complex, we, in our regulatory roles, are being driven increasingly toward reliance on private market self-regulation similar to what emerged in more primitive forms in the 1850s in the United States." --Alan Greenspan Toward Electronic Money & Banking: The Role of Government A Conference Sponsored by the United States Department of the Treasury September 19-20, 1996 --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

Re: Is this group dead?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) In article <wimlEFHsur.6CE(a)netcom.com>, wiml(a)netcom.com (Wim Lewis) wrote: > In article <5togij$4he$1(a)quixote.stanford.edu>, > Rich Graves <rcgraves(a)disposable.com> wrote: > >No, nothing caused it. It's just dead, pretty much always has been. > >"Always" being only a few months, of course. > > Well, sure --- define "always" as "recently" and you won't see much > change. More than a couple months ago, it was non-dead (about ten relevant > articles a day on good days, IIRC). That's why I'm curious. > Some of us posted our articles to the Cypherpunks list(s) to this newsgroup, when it was first created. For my own part, this was partly to ensure propagation in case the new distributed mailing lists failed for some reason, and partly as a show of support for the new newsgroup, alt.cypherpunks. But alt.cypherpunks filled up with the usual spam and cross-posts. And the distributed mailing lists have done well. So most of us don't bother with it. If you or other readers are really interested, subscribe to the list. Newsgroups are just too prone to casual drop-ins, meaning, people who have no sense of history, no awareness of past issues already hashed out, etc. (Lest anyone think I'm being "undemocratic," sure. I cop to that. Anyone who wants to use alt.cypherpunks for discussions is free to. But if nobody does, so?) --Tim May -- There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Government to seek stay in Bernstein case
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 13:43:46 -0700 From: Cindy Cohn <Cindy(a)McGlashan.com> Subject: Government to seek stay in Bernstein case Hi all, Just talked to Mr. Coppolino at the Justice Department. They are filing ex parte emergency stay papers tonight or tomorrow morning to try to stay the impact of Judge Patel's ruling pending appeal. He'll be faxing me the documents when they are ready. Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

1 0

Re: Re: <<Vitamin B>>(August 27, 1997) Back to the Future
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:05 PM 8/27/97 -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote: > > <<Deleted header information here>> > > > > >Vitamin B: >Your Daily Dose of Bionomics > >August 27, 1997 > >Back to the Future > >"In the pre-Civil War period, when the general >ethos of laissez faire severely discouraged >government intervention in the market economy, >private regulations arose in the form of a variety >of institutions, which accomplished much of >what we endeavor to do today with our elaborate >system of government rule making and >supervision. In particular, scholars have noted >that the period saw the development of private >measures to help holders of bank notes protect >themselves from risk. As the notes were not >legal tender, there was no obligation to accept >the currency of a suspect bank, or to accept it >at par value; accordingly, notes often were >accepted and cleared at less than par. As a >result, publications--bank note reporters--were >established to provide current information on >market rates for notes of different banks based >on their creditworthiness, reputation, and location, >as well as to identify counterfeit notes. Bank note >brokers created a ready market for notes of >different credit quality. In some areas, private >clearinghouses were established, which >provided incentives for self-regulation. " > >"Banks competed for reputation, and advertised >high capital ratios to attract depositors. Capital to >asset ratios in those days often exceeded one-third. >One must keep in mind that then, as now, a significant >part of safety and soundness regulations came from >market forces and institutions. Government regulation >is an add-on that tries to identify presumed market >failures and, accordingly, substitute official rules to >fill in the gaps. " > >"To be sure, much of what developed in that earlier >period was primitive and often ineffectual. But the >financial system itself was just beginning to evolve. " >... Your description reminds me of some descriptions of how UNIX has been evolving. I guess with time and the appropiate types of hackers, any system can become secure after a few cycles. It may not be elegant but it gets the job done.

1 0

Trademark lawsuit over key words in web pages
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:32:36 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Trademark lawsuit over key words in web pages This is a fascinating lawsuit. Might keywords in web pages -- inserted like tasty morsels to attract hungry scavenger robots -- violate the law? Has trademark law become so broad that it violates long-held principles of free expression? What if my web page criticizes, say, Microsoft's alliance with Apple -- am I allowed to include "Microsoft sucks" as keywords? Certainly in this case no person would confuse my web site with microsoft.com -- but might a robot webcrawler? -Declan ------------------ http://www.ljx.com/internet/ Patents.com Sues for Trademark Infringement: Can a publisher infringe a law firm's trademark by including its name in computer code? A patent law firm is taking the question to federal court. New York based Oppedahl & Larson, which operates the Internet site www.patents.com, is suing five companies it claims improperly used the firm's name to draw business to their web sites. The firm is charging the companies and three individual defendants with unfair competition and trademark infringement for including the firm's name without permission in program coding for their web sites. Attorneys say some of the coding -- called a meta-tag -- caused Internet users looking for Oppedahl & Larson to be directed by a search engine to another company. [...] ------------------ From: Sandi <sandi(a)spiderwebb.com> >Subject: Re: Competitor Name in Meta-tags Is a No-No >Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:31:45 -0600 > >Dr. Welch of Advanced Concepts (who is being sued) has been >a online friend of mine for over a year now. In fact, I bought my first >virtual domain from him and ProWebSite. He is just the nicest >guy - a dentist in Texas. This whole thing has him quite uptight >though. I guess you just can't be toooooo careful with those >pesky Meta Tags... > >~Sandi <back to lurk mode> ------------------ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 97-Z-1592 OPPEDAHL & LARSON, Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED CONCEPTS, ROBERT A. WELCH, CODE TEAM - LBK, INC., GEORGE WILLIAMS, PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT, DAVE DEAN, MSI MARKETING, INC., and INTERNET BUSINESS SERVICES, Defendants. [...] 36. Based on an evaluation of the underlying source documents, Plaintiff has determined that the URLs on defendants' web sites are using Plaintiff's "OPPEDAHL" and "LARSON" marks to erroneously identify to search services that these URLs are identifying services provided by Plaintiff. 37. Notwithstanding plaintiff's well-known and prior use of, and prior statutory and common-law rights in, the marks "OPPEDAHL & LARSON," defendants, without the consent of plaintiff, have adopted, used and caused to be used in interstate commerce, and continues to use and cause to be used, the substantially identical mark in connection with identifying the source of the content of its web pages. 38. Such use by defendants of web pages bearing a substantially identical mark to plaintiff's mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" is misleading and is likely to cause confusion and mistake, and to deceive the public into believing falsely that defendants' web pages are connected with and/or sponsored or authorized by Plaintiff, when in fact defendants have no connection whatsoever with Plaintiff in regard to such web pages. 39. Defendants' misleading use of a mark substantially identical to the mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" constitutes false advertising, false designation of origin, and false representation in and affecting interstate commerce in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). 40. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great damage to its business, goodwill, reputation, and profits. 41. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against this unfair competition. Unless defendants are preliminarily and permanently enjoined by this Court, plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm. Second Cause of Action (Federal Dilution) 42. Plaintiff realleges and incorporate herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-37 and 40-41 of the Complaint as set forth above. 43. As a direct result of plaintiff's long and extensive experience, care, and skill in producing and marketing legal services and providing information on intellectual property law under the mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON," plaintiff's mark has become famous. 44. Defendants, by using a confusingly similar trademark, are misleading the public into believing that their services are connected with Plaintiff's business. On information and belief, the defendants willfully intended to trade on the reputation of Oppedahl & Larson or to cause dilution of the "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" mark. 45. Such acts by defendants are likely to deprive plaintiff of the benefit of the goodwill attached to the mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON," injure plaintiff's business reputation, and dilute the distinctive quality of plaintiff's trademark in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). 46. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants as alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damage to its business, goodwill, and reputation. 47. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against this dilution of and injury to business reputation. Unless defendants are enjoined by this Court, plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm. Third Cause of Action (Unfair Competition - Colorado Common Law) 48. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-38 the Complaint as set forth above. 49. Plaintiff's mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" is inherently distinctive and has acquired a strong secondary meaning. 50. Defendants' wrongful use of a substantially identical and therefore confusingly similar trademark as alleged herein is likely to deceive the public into believing falsely that there is a connection between plaintiff and defendants. Defendants have unfairly competed with plaintiff in violation of the Colorado common law. 51. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants as alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer great damage to its business, goodwill, and reputation. 52. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law against this unfair competition. Unless defendants are enjoined by this Court, plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm. 53. In acting as alleged herein, defendants have acted with oppression, fraud, and malice toward plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing defendants. Fourth Cause of Action (Trademark Infringement - Colorado Common Law) 54. Plaintiff realleges and incorporate herein by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1-38 and 51-53 of the Complaint as set forth above. 55. Plaintiff has used the mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" for providing intellectual property information over the Internet for many years. Said mark has become extensively known and associated in the minds of the public with plaintiff's business and services. 56. Defendants have used the designation "OPPEDAHL" and "LARSON" in connection with their web pages that is confusingly similar to that created and used by plaintiff with intentional disregard of plaintiff's trademark rights. As a result of such acts, defendants are misleading the public into believing falsely that their web pages are connected with plaintiff's services, all in violation of the Colorado common law concerning the protection of trademarks. 57. As a proximate result of the acts of defendants as alleged herein, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damage to its business, goodwill, and reputation. 58. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the infringements of the mark "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" alleged herein. Unless defendants are enjoined by this Court, plaintiff will continue to suffer irreparable harm. 59. In acting as alleged herein, defendants have acted with oppression, fraud, and malice toward plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows: 1. That defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees and representatives and all other persons, firms or corporations in active concert or participation with them, be preliminarily and thereafter permanently enjoined and restrained from: (1) using in any manner in connection with any of their web pages, or in connection with any advertising or promotions of such web pages, the names and trademarks "OPPEDAHL," "LARSON," and "OPPEDAHL & LARSON" and any colorable imitation thereof; and (2) doing any act or thing calculated or likely to cause confusion or mistake in the minds of members of the public or the trade, or prospective users of defendants' services, as to the source of services provided, produced, distributed, sold or offered for sale thereby, or likely to deceive members of the public or the trade, or prospective purchasers, into believing that there is some connection between defendants' and plaintiff or that defendants' web pages are being produced, distributed, sold or offered for sale with plaintiff's authorization; 2. That defendants, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a), be directed to file with this Court and serve upon plaintiff within thirty (30) days after entry of the injunction, a report in writing under oath setting forth in detail the manner and form in which they have complied with the injunction; 3. That defendants, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1118, be ordered to deliver up for destruction all media, packages, wrappers, receptacles, and articles in their possession bearing the mark "OPPEDAHL," "LARSON" and/or "OPPEDAHL & LARSON," or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation thereof, and all plates, molds, matrices, and other means of making the same; 4. That defendants account for and pay over to plaintiff all of the profits realized by defendants, or others acting in concert or participation with defendant, from the sale and distribution of their services in connection with the unauthorized use of the marks "OPPEDAHL," "LARSON" and/or "OPPEDAHL & LARSON," and defendants' unfair methods of competition as alleged herein; 5. That plaintiff recover its damages sustained as a result of defendants' unfair competition and infringement of plaintiff's marks; 6. That plaintiff be awarded three times defendants' profits or three times plaintiff's damages, whichever is greater, together with its reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1117(a) and (b); 7. The plaintiff be awarded punitive damages pursuant to Colorado common law. 8. That plaintiff recover the costs of this action; and 9. That plaintiff be granted such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. OPPEDAHL & LARSON Dated: July 23, 1997 Carl Oppedahl Oppedahl & Larson 611 Main Street P.O. Box 5540 Frisco, Colorado 80443-5540 (970) 513-9950 Fax (970) 513-9948 Plaintiff Of Counsel: Marina T. Larson Stanley D. Ference III Oppedahl & Larson 1992 Commerce Street, Suite 309 Yorktown Heights, New York 10598 (914) 245-3252 Fax (914) 962-4330 Address of plaintiff: Oppedahl & Larson 611 Main Street P.O. Box 5540 Frisco, Colorado 80443-5540

1 0

News from the Front (August Issue)
by news＠sldc.ffg.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An update to our customers and friends on happenings at ----------------------------------------------------------------------- F O R E F R O N T - Taking the Chaos out of the 'Net http://www.ffg.com Newsletter 8/25/97 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Contents: I. Special Offer II. News from the 'Front III. Hot Tip ----------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Special Offer Due to the popularity of the WebBundle, we're bringing it back for a limited time. ForeFront would like to offer you, our V.I.P.'s, a chance to get ALL of our Web products (WebSeeker, WebWhacker, and WebPrinter) at a discount. Get the Web Bundle for only $89.50 for a limited time. - http://store.ffg.com/webbundle/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- II. News from the 'Front Thanks to everyone for signing up for the Internet Research Course. ForeFront releases their second FREE e-mail course on Off-line Browsing. Sign-up for our no-cost course at http://www.ffg.com/courses WebWhacker 3.0 for Macintosh released. The worlds first off-line browser for Macintosh just got better. See the new features at: http://www.ffg.com/whacker Educational WebWhacker enters Beta! Ed Whacker brings WebWhacker 3.0 to the classroom. Whack Internet pages and share them with an entire classroom with a single click. The teacher can launch browsers on every station in the classroom with one button. Beta testers get 50% off the retail price when Ed Whacker is released. If you'd like to join the beta program, visit: - http://www.ffg.com/whacker/edwhackerbeta.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Tip o' the Day WebSeeker's Filtering is its most powerful feature. If you are looking for something very specific on the Internet, start WebSeeker and enter your keywords. Then choose "Filter Find". FilterFind is slower, but usually worth the wait. Every word on every page is indexed allowing you to quickly narrow your search. Choose the Filter button (funnel with 3 dots after it) and enter any specific query. You can use AND, OR, NOT, NEAR and other powerful features to narrow your search until you find EXACTLY what you are looking for. No other program gives you the power of a WebSeeker search. If you don't have WebSeeker 3 then try it now! - http://www.ffg.com/seeker/ If you have an earlier version of WebSeeker then upgrade now! - http://www.ffg.com/seeker/wsupgrade.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsletter is only sent to those who requested the newsletter and those who downloaded, registered, or evaluated our software. If you wish to unsubscribe from the ForeFront newsletter mailing list, please visit http://www.ffg.com/press to Unsubscribe.

1 0

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