December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995
by Andrew.Spring＠ping.be 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >I am not familiar with american laws and have two questions: > >1. If the bill becomes law, how can someone who violates it be >punished? > - From the top of my head: Subpoena your service provider's computer records. Intimidate your roommate into testifying against you. Tapping your phone. Entrapping you into doing it. Feds are in the business of putting people behind bars. They are _very_ good at it. > >2. Does someone who publishes software which encodes or encrypts >(ASCII is a code, isn't it?) have to prove that he has provided the >universal decoder to the state or does the state have to prove that he >didn't do? I'm betting that the Feds will adopt as a working definition anything that requires a key to decrypt the communications. That means compression software, rot13, and most hash functions are ok. > >In the former case, does he get any receipt from the department of >justice and what does the receipt say (1.3MByte of software >received...)? > This is the U.S. Government. They Have Forms. You just file form THX1138/KGB666-007, omitting pages 113-115 and substituting Addendum Foxtrot Uniform Delta; then you're covered. >In the latter case, how do they want to prove he didn't? If he gave >just a big > > for(i=0;;i++) try_key(i); > >how do they want to prove this doesn't work? There is a certain >problem in theory. I don't know the english name, but in german it is It's the Halting Problem, in English. Expert Testimony: "We experimented with 113,296 keys chosen at random and the defendants algorithm took an average of 29,000 years to find each one. It is our professional opinion, therefore, that the defendant is jacking us around and ought to be keelhauled". ObPGP: Incidentally, did you know that PGP puts a "- " in front of a line that begins with the word "From"? Just so "sendmail" doesn't hose your signatures, I spoz. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6ui iQCVAgUBMArcIY4k1+54BopBAQGEQAQA3POWJd+5OtdRy9otN0PZWSzA+wyIjM99 +PqxyoBlfvnrut7xNYzgGOedyLjQHoWMgXwWAtArIr2srFqwr0eUu5aUXcYxySBx NiEH/G4Y3Z3paL2yOdDLPqrjB7B68UusCYvgTYUCLrkcLU+zqOMfvTPRTx63AQ9h QoBB8/XMddc= =/k0o -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Thank you VERY much! You'll be getting a Handsome Simulfax Copy of your OWN words in the mail soon (and My Reply). <Andrew.Spring(a)ping.be> PGP Print: 0529 C9AF 613E 9E49 378E 54CD E232 DF96 Thank you for question, exit left to Funway.

1 0

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)
by Andrew.Spring＠ping.be 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >You _were_ using that software on a _computer_ weren't you? Guess it's >one of your racketeer's tools, so we'll have to take it for ourselves, er, um, >for evidence and protection of national security.... This wasn't really my point. Grassley's bill implies that uploading crypto to an overseas FTP site would qualify as a predicate act, needed for a RICO seizure. I think he is assuming that someone would do this for the purposes of making money: and that anything bought with that money would be RICOable. I don't think he or anyone else in Congress is aware that people tend to do this stuff for free. I remember one of the sponsors of the CDA ranting about pornographers "profiteering" from pornographic images on the Internet, blissfully unaware that stuff downloaded from alt.sex.binaries.insert.your.fetish.here doesn't profit anyone but the phone company (for the hours you stay online to get it). So I'm wondering who this RICO stuff applies to. The guy who wrote it and uploaded it to an FTP site? He's not profiting. The guy who uses it? He didn't commit the predicate act. Who? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6ui iQCVAgUBMArYUI4k1+54BopBAQGk6AQAufSXBBB9/XoDcKoWaalLdp+hxO/kSER1 wEtEAcRqh3YZR9IRVFuFsmotJ8exupaOzy+OLldublq1RfaCR/Jjqvc0V1uSovYA DA9eFjYApGSPoDkQp6C6ZVcJVqpD1QQhNYpY96nABTp45AYsMlrdpartwjJZKDLz Rx1EFNVwoC4= =K75H -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Thank you VERY much! You'll be getting a Handsome Simulfax Copy of your OWN words in the mail soon (and My Reply). <Andrew.Spring(a)ping.be> PGP Print: 0529 C9AF 613E 9E49 378E 54CD E232 DF96 Thank you for question, exit left to Funway.

2 1

Safford's Nemesis
by Mats Bergstrom 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kahn (1962) doesn't really explain why vital Magic intercepts and the 'winds' execute did not prevent the Pearl Harbour disaster. I just read 'Infamy' by John Toland (1982), containing 'proof' - very convincing, in my opinion - of the Pearl Harbour cover-up. The US president, selected members of his cabinette and a few admirals and generals knew - from Magic and the 'winds' execute, radio traffic analysis, diplomatic sources, double agents - exactly when and where the Japaneese were going to attack, but didn't warn Hawaii, fearing that too efficient counter-measures by the Oahu military might make the attack abort and so not convince the isolationists. The unexpected tactical capabilities of the Japaneese armada then made a cover-up all the more important. What has been revealed since? Are the views in Toland's book now 'official', established history, or what? Mats

1 0

OUT_law
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7-17-95. W$Japer: "As Regulators Seek to Police Internet, An Offbeat Finnish Service Fights Back." (PW cited earlier.) The U.S. Congress and governments from Singapore to New Zealand are mulling new efforts to control the flow of material over the Internet. But from a barren storefront in Finland's capital, Johan Helsingius is doing everything he can to prevent this. He may well be winning the fight. JUF_pug "Louis Freeh's Golden-Boy Image Faces Scrutiny Over FBI's Role in Shootout." During his 23 months as director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Louis Freeh has generated the golden-boy image the FBI needed. Now , Mr. Freeh's judgment is open to more intense scrutiny ... raises the possibility of that dreaded Washington phenomenon: the coverup. REX_rug Zwei: OUT_law

1 0

Re: Root Causes
by terrell＠sam.neosoft.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >From: Michael Froomkin <Michael(a)umlaw.demon.co.uk> >Jim didn't take my Con Law I course. > >In message <199507161819.OAA06090(a)bb.hks.net> Jim Ray writes: >[cuts throughout] >> >> Amendment IX -- "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights >> shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." > ^^^^^^^ >> [The right to write code was among many rights NOT enumerated.] >> > >Very hard to argue that the right to write code (as opposed to, >say, the right to write in code) existed in the late 18th >century; hence it is hard to argue that it could be "retained" >today. What about Jacquard loom cards? Buford C. Terrell 1303 San Jacinto Street Professor of Law Houston, TX 77002 South Texas College of Law voice (713)646-1857 terrell(a)sam.neosoft.com fax (713)646-1766

1 0

Re: Automated Rant Generators and Letter Generators
by tcmay＠sensemedia.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:29 PM 7/17/95, Harry Bartholomew wrote: >> >> Cypherpunks could probably have an effect on hastening this "denial of >> service" attack on the efficacy of letter-writing by releasing an >> easy-to-use package that does all this letter writing at the click of a >> button....just type in some key words, for the topics, and it does the >> rest. >> >> An interesting project, actually. >> >> --Tim May >> > A final step might be to interface the output to old pen plotters > like my HP7470A with an ascii-to-handwriting program. Akin to > the White House souvenir signature generator, but with a set of > parameters to mimic different "hands". Knuth's Metafont tricks > come to mind. By the way, I should first say that I have nothing against letter writing, and my comments about "hastening" a "denial of service" attack on letter-writing are mostly just out of general interest. Bart's comments about using Knuth's typographic work are interesting, to the extent that letters need to look handwritten. In the Mac market, it's possible to send in some handwriting samples and get back a font that emulates the handwriting! I don't think the pen plotter is actually needed--and few people would use it--as most faxes can be emulated with laser printers (due of course to the limited dots per inch resulution). In fact, most fax modems can directly fax from any screen that can produce printed output. So, the combination of handwriting fonts, automated rant generators (of varying rabidities), and fax capabilities gives a pretty good start. Using lots of handwriting samples, various other fonts, and a mix of styles in the letters will help. Anyway, where this all gets interesting is the following: * Can a kind of Turing Test be tried here? That is, in this limited domain of "letters to the editor/Congressmen," can a letter generator be implemented which generates letters effectively indistinguishable from letters and faxes generated by actual human beings? ("Effectively indistinguishable" in the sense that a human reader could not sort a set of letters into human- and machine-generated subsets with statistically significant certainty better than guessing). Of course this is also similar to the "style detectors" we so often talk about. The crypto relevance has to do with detecting patterns in letters and rants, in emulating these patterns, and (perhaps) in speeding up lobbying. (Though I agree that widespread adoption of automated letter-writing, such as the direct mail folks are already doing, will eventually just kill off letter writing as a means of lobbying.) This may also hasten the adoption, someday, of digital signatures. Congressmen and their aides may check incoming letters against databases of their consituents who have "registered" with them (lots of issues here). Merely counting the "yes" and "no" letters has long been problematic, as the Republicans have been leading in direct mail campaigns since at least the mid-70s (recall Richard Viguerie...). Increased automation will just make it even more obvious. --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."

1 0

Re: ECM list.
by bigdaddy＠ccnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >I'm also considering other strategies for gaining e$-- offering a service >on the DigiCash "cybershops" page, or just going to all my e-mail using >friends, showing them how to get their free e$100.00, and then begging them >to give me half of it. (Finder's fee? Friendly gift?) Why not offer an anonymous proxy of some kind for e-cash? You can charge per connect or per unit of time, simply to demonstrate the concept. The techniques developed for remailers(breaking up messages...accepting PGP- encrypted destinations...varying times...so on) could find an application here. If a chain could be constructed, it would help protect the identity of the user(assuming no collusion between operators). The problem is, as always, to write the code. Not to mention the ethical/possibly legal question of selling anonymity... Another possible service: selling gems of wisdom in pieces. Find or write a gem of wisdom...taking into account copyright laws and so forth. Then set up a storefront via telnet or http...a sort of kiosk. Customers can then buy secrets or portions of secrets...or percentages. Use a secret splitting algorithm to allow people to 'split the cost' of a secret and then get in touch with each other through anonymous remailers set up for that purpose by your kiosk. Depending on the information you're selling(whether it be the secret key for BlackNet or simply the contents of your CD collection), you could earn some e-cash this way. An all-or-nothing-disclosure-of-secrets protocol might also come in handy. Again, the problem is sitting down and writing the code. Has anyone made any significant efforts toward either of these yet, with or without CD$? David Molnar -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMApx1+FDHpuTkgoVAQEo/Af/cmZPKI1Uk/hFbTwuQwcZbDagnAHpZkqZ WdJMUe/4RxOymB5mnfvM7bl4S4x5BrUJJ6mepQwq0/39PiJRWAJFJFnhuZoIin5o I5KCOTNQMVNdJLL7iTtZJEqrIEGhfq2lrRpbyc1wPGj+9l7tWlSfTXLl+E0z6MtZ OWEJ0mzP4eG5TQJEtObAqD5QYOhHngEN96NMYDUv6gYzZROx3zovYqrFFrJt8zr1 HkxZzpA/rGHdoCAeViLAqO42o18zRvu8j0i7VIXI/rx6rOQ6gCDs4tgjMH1BSQH4 3rMfxb0KB8Vlmd1AL1OzvhRSy9cbBvdX2D+iOC7sZQ755JBRwJKd2Q== =9YVg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- lo...look to the sig, for there will be no sign

1 0

Re: "Judgement Proof" and Putting Up or Shutting Up
by jgrubs＠voxbox.norden1.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- mpd(a)netcom.com (Mike Duvos) writes: > > > What's CFR? > Code of Federal Regulations? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: http://norden1.com/~jim/sylvania.html iQCVAwUBMAr8cN74r4kaz3mVAQFZUgP+K/tIieWM1meiSWMfveLeF/LTLc1oLTp/ IftfXZokadfbh9RMvSXfiJvCVHZS/mRa33KG+SCNjt+K0yLWi7JrYFEmepGxFlVn NjcrZdM+lFfNc03ksgOlccZg+o7GlzBNUW3s7yN2/Y2aRss22mfJkhtWvfaqDs7h mYT4tONtNSQ= =Zp8i -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- WebCasters(tm) James C. Grubs jgrubs(a)voxbox.norden1.com 6817 Maplewood Avenue Tel.: 419-882-2697 Sylvania, Oh 43560 Fax: 419-885-2814 Internet consulting, HTML programing, Information brokering

1 0

Is it legal for commercial companies to use PGP?
by jgrubs＠voxbox.norden1.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- tim werner <werner(a)mc.ab.com> writes: > Hi, > > I was reading in some Where to Get PGP Web page that "PGP2.6.2 is legal > to use in the U.S. for non-commercial purposes (i.e., you cannot sell it > or the functionality it provides)". Can anyone on the list say whether > this is true? That is, was the use of "i.e." correct, or should it have > been "e.g."? > > Or, to put it more succinctly, I was talking to one of the sys admins at > A-B, and he said that we weren't allowed to use PGP to encrypt our mail, > because Viacrypt owned the commercial rights. But, according to the bit > I quoted, it would only be a violation if A-B tried to put PGP into one > of their products. > > Has anyone heard a (hopefully legal, but I'll listen to anyone's > opinion) answer to this? As I recall, the following is a correct scenario: a customer can use PGP to send credit card numbers to a vendor he's making a personal purchase from, but the vendor must use Viacrypt. If the customer is buying something to use for business, BOTH must use Viacrypt. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: http://norden1.com/~jim/sylvania.html iQCVAwUBMAr+Ut74r4kaz3mVAQFMqwP8CgTKl3QetW+vn/A4TqJE2BrTEstM8fuw 2ZrmDZjHbZwISPtgbtwesup+wqknc9ECQwNKoyqbg5vYtK6Zd2tLVrD9gs7suA2F BEJeBNNMoGDPBh6Ep4alwtK6JpSt+e+AMTimRQCml+sf/md0GM6UovR1ZufQBTog +jLDu9KNRSg= =MCgA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- WebCasters(tm) James C. Grubs jgrubs(a)voxbox.norden1.com 6817 Maplewood Avenue Tel.: 419-882-2697 Sylvania, Oh 43560 Fax: 419-885-2814 Internet consulting, HTML programing, Information brokering

1 0

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995 (fwd)
by jgrubs＠voxbox.norden1.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Andrew.Spring(a)ping.be (Andrew Spring) writes: > So I'm wondering who this RICO stuff applies to. The guy who wrote it and > uploaded it to an FTP site? He's not profiting. The guy who uses it? He > didn't commit the predicate act. Who? It doesn't matter. Even if they say "Oops, sorry" later, the best you can hope for is to get your computer returned as a bushel basket full of junk parts. More likely it'll end up in some police station with "D.A.R.E." painted all over it. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: http://norden1.com/~jim/sylvania.html iQCVAwUBMAsAMt74r4kaz3mVAQHtygP+Ou3wJB68ECFzanKNO7l4AIqtZfApNA1z jZNatwmBZGOnQbC6LSQi5La5lws+U/yUs40hW8ZBVwG0/qUGH4RUra57Ubrtya+e B8vz9/Vnou8a5DkW4fSsL+eiNeJimKiFAguUQSdex3gJShjXIpVk/++3AKvEVy6h q43kUVG9irM= =VWRM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- WebCasters(tm) James C. Grubs jgrubs(a)voxbox.norden1.com 6817 Maplewood Avenue Tel.: 419-882-2697 Sylvania, Oh 43560 Fax: 419-885-2814 Internet consulting, HTML programing, Information brokering

1 0