December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Different Ways to Serial Murder AOL Members' Children
by Syniker＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subj: Different Ways to Serial Murder AOL Members' Children Date: 97-09-12 01:00:46 EDT From: remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org (bureau42 Anonymous Remailer) Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Different Ways to Serial Murder AOL Members' Children: 1. I already ate all of mine. How many you got that are edible???? 2. 3. 4. 5.

2 1

House panel votes behind closed doors to build in Big Brother
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 23:37:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: House panel votes behind closed doors to build in Big Brother Software that protects your privacy is a controlled substance that may no longer be sold, a Congressional committee decided today. Meeting behind closed doors this morning, the House Intelligence committee voted to replace a generally pro-encryption bill with an entirely rewritten draft that builds in Big Brother into all future encryption products. (The Senate appears to be moving in a similar direction.) The new SAFE bill -- titled in a wonderfully Orwellian manner the "Security and Freedom through Encryption" act even though it provides neither -- includes these provisions: SELLING CRYPTO: Selling unapproved encryption products (that do not include "immediate access to plaintext") becomes a federal crime, immediately after this bill becomes law. Five years in jail plus fines. Distributing, importing, or manufacturing such products after January 31, 2000 is another crime. NETWORK PROVIDERS: Anyone offering scrambled "network service" including encrypted web servers or even "ssh" would be required to build in a backdoor for the government by January 31, 2000. This backdoor must provide for "immediate decryption or access to plaintext of the data." TECHNICAL STANDARDS: The Attorney General will publish technical requirements for such backdoors in network service and encryption products, within five months after the president signs this bill. LEGAL TO USE CRYPTO: "After January 31, 2000, it shall not be unlawful to use any encryption product purchased or in use prior to such date." GOVERNMENT POWERS: If prosecutors think you may be selling, importing, or distributing non-backdoor'd crypto or are "about" to do so, they can sue. "Upon the filing of the complaint seeking injunctive relief by the Attorney General, the court shall automatically issue a temporary restraining order against the party being sued." Also, there are provisions for holding secret hearings, and "public disclosure of the proceedings shall be treated as contempt of court." You can request an advisory opinion from the government to see if the program you're about to publish violates the law. ACCESS TO PLAINTEXT: Courts can issue orders, ex parte, granting police access to your encrypted data. But all the government has to do to get one is to provide "a factual basis establishing the relevance of the plaintext" to an investigation. They don't have to demonstrate probable cause, which is currently required for a search warrant. More interestingly, this explicitly gives the FISA court jurisdiction (yes, the secret court that has never denied a request for a wiretap). If they decode your messages, they'll tell you within 90 days. GOVERNMENT PURCHASING: Federal government computer purchases must use a key escrow "immediate decryption" backdoor after 1998. Same with networks "purchased directly with Federal funds to provide the security service of data confidentially." Such products can be labeled "authorized for sale to U.S. government" ENCRYPTION EXPORTS: The Defense & Commerce departments will control exports of crypto. Software "without regard to strength" can be exported if it includes a key escrow backdoor and is first submitted to the government. Export decisions aren't subject to judicial review, and the "president may by executive order waive any provision of this act" if he thinks it's a threat to national security. Within 15 days, he must send a classified briefing to Congress. ADVISORY PANEL: Creates the Encryption Industry and Information Security Board, with seven members from Justice, State, FBI, CIA, White House, and six from the industry. INTERNATIONAL: The president can negotiate international agreements and perhaps punish noncompliant governments. Can you say "trade sancation?" (Other provisions barring the use of crypto in a crime and some forms of cryptanalysis are also in the bill.) Next the Commerce Committee will vote on SAFE, and a former FBI agent-turned-Congressman is vowing to ensure that similar language to this is included. (The committees are voting on the bill in parallel, and a four-person team of Congressmen is working to forge a compromise before Commerce votes.) Then the heads of the five committees that have rewritten the legislation will sit down and work out another compromise. If it's acceptable to the House Rules committee -- and if the FBI/NSA get what they want it will be -- the bill can move to the floor for a vote. That's why the encryption outlook in Congress is abysmal. Crypto-advocates have lost, and lost miserably. A month ago, the debate was about export controls. Now the battle is over how strict the //domestic// controls will be. It's sad, really, that so many millions of lobbyist-dollars were not only wasted, but used to advance legislation that has been morphed into a truly awful proposal. I wrote more about this at: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1385,00.html -Declan

4 3

Re: The problem of playing politics with our constitutional rights
by Syniker＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well -- I wasn't thinking of an encrypted 'channel' -- I mean, just put the damn crypto right on the page as a graphic -- it's a work of art, see -- it's a digital painting... and when it's on the WWW, it's auto public knowledge, and in the public domain... Anyways, I'm not waitin' -- I redid my homepage and have got the two RSA Perl lines on there... I'll hang it by the weekend... too damn tired tonight... Also -- if I can get PGP running this weekend, first two encrypted emails will be to GagMe Gallegly and Diane F... Wait.... fuckin' Gagme doesn't even have email..........OK -- FAX.... Larry.

1 0

Re: House panel votes behind closed doors to build in Big Brother
by Syniker＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We got ourselves one sicko government. I'll never comply or approve of any part of this. Larry.

1 0

Re: The problem of playing politics with our constitutional rights
by Seth Finkelstein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: David H Dennis <david(a)amazing.com> > I must confess that I'm wondering what Seth Finkelstein, Pro-Government Warrior, I resent this part of the description, but let it pass. > able to jump over 50 Libertarians in a single bound, able to out-flame 5 or so Libertarians in a single thread is more accurate. > thinks of all this. Crypto restrictions are natural to oppose in a > Libertarian world, due to our fundamental distrust of government. > Where do they fit in a Liberal one? I'm *solidly* against such restrictions. Hey, if *Lizard* recommends me here, you've got to believe it :-). Here's a quick political lesson: Being a Liberal in the US means very roughly ONLY that one believes that the government has some role to play in moderating the excesses of the market. It does not particularly *make* you a civil-libertarian. However, because Liberals think about general social power and the abuse of it, they are very often led to the civil-libertarian view. In the opposite direction, sometimes they just want power themselves. It is with great regret that I must debunk the myth that being a Liberal makes you a saint (it only seems that way in comparison to everyone else around ... :-) ) It also helps that Liberals are *predominantly* drawn from ranks of those who are the targets of both public and private abuses. So they often both favor government action against business abuse, and strong civil-liberties guarantees to keep government power in check. It is *possible* to be a Conservative civil-libertarian, but this much lesser group, and has in the past decades very much been purged from the Republican party by the theocrats and hence from the national scene. The net result of this process: Not all Liberals are civil-libertarians, but civil-libertarian opposition will almost always come from Liberals (read this sentence several times until you understand it. I get so tired of people attacking the strawman that all Liberals are civil-libertarians, nyah, nyah, look at e.g. Dellums). Now, when you comprehend that, we go on to the next lesson: The Fundamental Problem in American politics is GET-A-MAJORITY. It is not "be a constitutional scholar", it is not "construct and defend the most rigorous argument for your position in terms of axiomatics from first principles", it isn't even "know what you're talking about". It is GET-A-MAJORITY. Old joke: After a campaign rally, a supporter told Adelai Stevenson "Mr. Stevenson, you've got every thinking man's vote!". He replied "That's not enough, I need a majority." Semi-digression: Business is "make a profit" - if you do that by throwing widows and orphans out into the street, it still works. What matters is how many dollars are made, not people affected. This is why Liberals view a population-based civil system as a necessary constraint on the imperatives of capital. Because ultimately we're people, not dollars. The goal of GET-A-MAJORITY is in great tension with intrinsically minority-rights, anti-majoritarian concepts such as civil-liberties. Any politician ignores this at great peril. Thus, Liberals who don't have to be elected can be a lot more vocal civil-liberties supporters than those who need to GET-A-MAJORITY. Thus even Liberal, civil-libertarian politicians may *vote against their principles* (do I hear gasps from the peanut gallery) because of electoral imperatives. Corollary 1: Detonating a nuclear device in DC will not solve this problem. The surviving government will just have a very good excuse for crypto-controls. Corollary 2: Repeated Libertarian rantings won't solve it either. Now, personally, you're probably not going to be seeing me on the crypto-barricades in the future. Is it because I'm a Big-Brother-loving government-worshipper? No, not at all. I was thinking today about what I could do on the issue. And I came to the conclusion that I'm basically so crippled and exhausted as a net.activist that I shouldn't do more (general statement, but set off by this particular topic). I can't stand a huge number of the people I'd have to work with, and I just don't have the patience and energy to keep pounding grains of understanding into them, it's like filling a sandbag with tweezers. But don't you dare assume support for crypto restrictions from that, it's rather coming to the point of being completely fed up with the drain of electronic activism on my life. ================ Seth Finkelstein sethf(a)mit.edu

3 2

Re: Any talk of limiting _existing_ crypto?
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > > OK, so the imminent legislation will ban sale or distribution unescrowed > crypto products after 1999 or 2000 or whatever. Exact details unclear. But > I see no language declaring existing products to be contraband. (Though > such language could still come, of course...nothing would surprised me at > this point.) Jesus Tim, are you getting senile? Bet the farm on the outlawing of existing crypto and you will have more money than Bill Gates in a couple of years. The new reality has become: any fascist, evil thing you can think of that it is possible for the government to do--ask *when*, not *if*. We are not arguing about the end of democracy in the US anymore. We are merely discussing the timetable, now. > If existing crypto is fully legal to use, then it could be years and years > before the Freeh-Reno-SAFE outlawing has any significant effect. Tim, you are forgetting about "the crisis." Which one? Name one. Make one up out of random Scrabble letters. Yup, that's the crisis that is going to require the outlawing of strong crypto. I would recognize it anywhere.

1 0

Please don't KILL THE PRESIDENT
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Youth In Asia Society: At our last monthly meeting, we discussed all of the reasons there are not to KILL THE PRESIDENT. We think it is our duty to inform people of our objection to those who believe it is necessary to KILL THE PRESIDENT. We also object to people who are constantly running around, shouting, incessantly, "KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT!" We think that this is rude. So we would ask you please not to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We don't want you to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We think it is inadvisable for you to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We certainly hope that you won't KILL THE PRESIDENT! We hope that no one you know decides to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We are dedicated in our efforts to convince people not to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We think that we will be successful in our efforts to convince people not to KILL THE PRESIDENT! We don't ask to be thanked for advising people not to KILL THE PRESIDENT! Nor do we expect to be thanked for advising people not to run around incessantly screaming "KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT! KILL THE PRESIDENT!" That's why we post anonymously. We're humble.

1 0

Damn Do-Gooders
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's people like this that are ruining the country. Anonymous wrote: >Dave Del Torto wrote: >> "All members of Congress, and particularly those of us on the Intelligence >> Committee, have a responsibility to find the proper balance between forward >> thinking commercial policies and the unquestioned need to protect the >> security of the American people and America's national interests." said >> HPSCI Chairman Porter J. Goss >I think we should all send Chairman Goss a letter of appreciation for >his offer to assassinate Child Murderer Janet Reno and Murderer Louis >Freeh. Most politicians are too cowardly to promise strong actions such >as this. I wish this damn do-gooder would just let me kill them myself. I hate owing people. Do-Badder

1 0

Re: in defense of Lon Horiuchi
by Zooko Journeyman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

When I posted "in defense of Lon Horiuchi" I had intended not to follow up on the thread, but the several responses I've read (which were more reasoned and polite than I had expected-- thanks guys) indicate that I didn't explain myself clearly. It was not my intention to argue that Lon Horiuchi is a good guy, that he fulfilled his responsibilities with appropriate care, that he's a good shot, that he worked in an honorable profession, that he is blameless in the death of the child, or such. (I may or may not _believe_ some of these propositions, but I'll spare you for you the full littany of my opinions.) All I intended to assert was that Lon Horiuchi is almost certainly not the malicious baby-killing murderer that Anonymous portrayed. There are many issues one could legitimately argue regarding a policeman who accidentally kills a non-combatant bystander during a fight. But comparing such a policemen to a terrorist who deliberately targets non-combatants with a bomb is beyond the pale. That, but for my interruption, this comparison would have passed unremarked among the cypherpunks crowd is damning. Why I'm posting: I don't expect that merely because of my contradiction the more rabid cypherpunks will suddenly throw off their twin blinders of ideology and hatred. Neither do I desire that they retreat into closed conversation where they can continue their self-inflaming rants without fear of interruption. My motivation in posting critical articles like these is primarily because there are a great number of silent readers of the cpunks list, and some of these people, perhaps being young or inexperienced, may consider such vile slanders to be self-evident truths if they continually see them pass unchallenged. Regards, Zooko

5 4

Official CypherPunks Decryption Software Breaks PGP !!!
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ANNOUNCEMENT: Official CypherPunks Decryption Software Now Available This is the first software package with the ability to Decrypt PGP in all of its forms. The package costs $1,000,000 and comes with an 80 lb. suitcase. We have attached the software to this file and will forward the suitcase upon receipt of the $1,000,000. Syntax: "cypherpunk.bat <filename>" echo "" echo "" echo " Official CypherPunk Decryption Software echo "" echo " Deciphered Message Is: echo "" echo "" NUKE D.C. !!! echo "" echo "" echo ""

1 0