December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

(fwd) IRS Modernization
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- forwarded message -- Path: wmich-news!gumby!newspump.wustl.edu!news.starnet.net!news.starnet.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!computer-privacy-request From: Monty Solomon <monty(a)roscom.COM> Newsgroups: comp.society.privacy Subject: IRS Modernization Date: 12 Sep 1997 19:33:17 GMT Organization: Computer Privacy Digest Lines: 170 Sender: comp-privacy(a)uwm.edu Approved: comp-privacy(a)uwm.edu Message-ID: <comp-privacy11.11.10(a)cs.uwm.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.2.6 X-Original-Submission-Date: 11 Sep 1997 22:08:16 -0400 X-Submissions-To: comp-privacy(a)uwm.edu X-Administrivia-To: comp-privacy-request(a)uwm.edu X-Computer-Privacy-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 011, Message 10 of 12 X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.society.privacy iQBFAwUBNBl8mTNf3+97dK2NAQGjTQF+IShsF6F0xmyCQi25Bh5+nlwfIOHLPVXm Aes89JHkrNTHPkuow8lQY/VJGKH4V/nY =pEpf Originator: levine(a)blatz.cs.uwm.edu Xref: wmich-news comp.society.privacy:527 Begin forwarded message: Date: 23 Aug 1997 21:21:31 -0700 From: Michael Dodas <miked(a)NOSPAM!.utw.com> Subject: IRS Modernization - Request for Information Newsgroups: comp.software.year-2000 I just recently read IRS's "Request for Comments (RFC)", which solicits comments for modernizing the IRS's tax systems. This document is the first information I've seen that shows just how desperate the IRS is and how complex the IRS tax systems are. Their systems are literally incomprehensible. I won't even attempt to describe this document in any type of detail. My comments are merely those taken from the document that "caught my eye" upon my first reading of this document (RFC). To truly appreciate the gravity of what the IRS wants to accomplish, you'll need to read the entire document. Keep in mind, also, that the Modernization effort is intended to proceed as a separate project from the Year 2000 correction effort. The document, which I will refer to as the RFC, begins with a cover letter from Arthur A. Gross, Associate Commissioner/Chief Information Officer at the IRS. Mr. Gross acknowledges that "the IRS assumed primary responsibility for managing both systems development and integration with less than acceptable results". This statement sets the tone for the IRS's direction of creating a "partnership" with the private sector "stakeholders" to modernize the IRS. Mr. Gross further indicates that it is "myth" to believe that the private sector alone could modernize the IRS, since IRS possesses the necessary "knowledge of tax administration" to build a new system. For all intents and purposes, IRS wants to turn over all of the project management, re-engineering, systems engineer, design and development and integration expertise to the private sector. I always knew the IRS was extraordinarily complex, but it is more complex than I could have ever imagined. The RFC indicated that the complete Modernization Blueprint consists of seven volumes--count them--seven volumes. It may be a simpler system, but it will inevitably end up being yet another complex monster. The RFC continues to say that "during the 1980's and early 1990's, effort focused on delivering taxpayer services and compliance functionality together with limited on-line development of stand along "stovepiped" systems with stand along data bases utilizing the principles of distributed computer processing, an approach to computing en vogue during the late 1980's and 1990's. Overall, the IRS computing environment evolved into an extraordinarily complex array of legacy and stand alone modernized systems with respect to both connectivity and interoperability between the mainframe platforms and the plethora of distributed systems." In other words, the IRS succumbed to "fashion technology" solutions which did nothing but complicate their previous efforts to modernize. To give you an idea of how large the IRS's information system are, consider these statistics from the RFC: There are three computing centers, with sixty (60) mainframes in ten regional service centers. NONE OF THE MAINFRAMES ARE CENTURY DATE COMPLIANT. There are 62 million lines of code in the IRS core business systems. Duplicate distributed networks have interoperability and connectivity problems and are largely not century date compliant. IRS mentions "risk" many times in the RFC. "While the risks inherent in Phase III may be nearly incalculable given the aged systems, the absence of critical documentation, dependency on Assembler Language Code (ALC) and the inevitable turnover of the IRS workforce supporting these systems, it is essential to plan and execute the conversion of the Master Files and its related suite of applications". IRS seems to know that it will not be able to retain its technical expertise, who will probably bail for better paying jobs. The IRS's goal is to canvas "any reasonable strategy to move forward on modernization" while, at the same time, managing the immediate crisis (Y2K) to "stay in business". Given the complexity of IRS, its past modernization failures and the Year 2000 problem facing them, you would have to be insane to believe these goals were obtainable. The Next Eighteen Months: Staying In Business And Preparing For Modernization: While searching for executive and senior information technology managers, the IRS received in excess of 800 applications from the "not faint of heart". IRS has an interesting way of describing what kind of job is in store for these people. They'll be luck to keep any of them around long-term. Rebuild Product Assurance. IRS indicates that staffing levels have sunk to less than 30 percent of the minimum industry standards, and is one of the highest priorities with IRS. The RFC indicated that today, major tax systems changes are not subjected to comprehensive testing prior to being migrated to production. Moreover, the Century Date conversion will place an extraordinary additional burden on the Product Assurance Program. I think what IRS is saying here is that they don't have the staff for a Y2K remediation effort and have obviously only partially completed the inventory phase. The IRS indicates that "it must undertake and complete major infrastructure initiatives no later than June 1999 to minimally ensure century date compliance for each of its existing mainframes and/or their successor platforms. At the same time, the IRS must complete the inventory of its field infrastructures as well as develop and execute a century date compliance plan for the conversion replacement and/or elimination of those infrastructures." How in god's name is this possible by June 1999 when they haven't even started. Notice how they used the words "minimally ensure century date compliance". What is that going to accomplish. Either you're compliant or you're not. Basically, the IRS admits it was "wrong-headed" to modernize the legacy systems instead of creating a brand new system. Considering the spaghetti code and systems in place, I would have to agree. On the other had, the IRS is indicating that contractual agreements may be extended for up to fifteen (15) years for the modernization effort. The new system will probably be obsolete before it ever gets off the ground. The last thing I will point out in the document stood out to me as the most profound of all, for obvious reasons. This is the way IRS describes themself: "The Information Systems (IS) organization of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a huge enterprise--employing in excess of 7,500 personnel across the United States, budgeted in excess of $1 billion annually and responsible for the design development and ongoing support of a highly complex and vast array of technologies which, taken together, comprise the technology-based engine that powers the IRS. A $1.4 trillion Financial Services Program, IRS business enterprises are unprecedented in size and scope - a Fortune One company - with service centers, district office and regional office operations, staffed by more than 100,000 employees, largely dependent on highly automated process as well as the currency, comprehensiveness and availability of vast storehouses of computerized data. The latter half of the last decade of the twentieth century presents IS management and staff with unprecedented challenges: fraught with risks and potential for failure; yet filled with opportunity to serve the nation's taxpayers, while contributing to the creation of the largest and most sophisticated technology-based program in business or government". The above two paragraphs may well be the IRS's epitaph. In my opinion, the only way the Federal Government can secure its tax revenue collection system is to completely repeal the current United States Tax Code and replace it with a VERY simple one like a flat tax. Any attempt to fix (Y2K and Modernize) is impossible. The IRS is a classic example and sets the standard for systems which are too complex to automate. This level of complexity should be limited to scientific endeavors. I truly believe that it will be easier for NASA to put a man on Mars more easily and quickly than to continue on with the current IRS and tax code currently in place. This amazing document can be found at: http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/bureaus/irs/prime/primerfc.htm Then select Request For Comment No. TIRNO-97-H-0010 It is a 116 page Adobe Acrobat document. I had great difficulty printing the document because of the complex diagrams. I have a HP Laserjet/4 with 4 megs of memory. The only way I could print it was to use a Laserjet/III driver. It worked at the high resolution, but not as well as the Laserjet/4. Leave it to the government to create a document that you can't even print easily! Happy Reading, -- Mike Dodas -- end of forwarded message --

2 1

Re: Any talk of limiting _existing_ crypto? (fwd)]
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, Sep 12, 1997 at 12:00:43AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > How about the system file i/o level? Sort of like TCFS (Transparent Crytpographic File System) for Linux? Is there such a thing for Windows? NT? Mac? If so I've heard of none. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1979 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Let sleeping dogs lay]
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, Sep 11, 1997 at 05:04:52PM -0700, Tim May wrote: > > "Nothing good can come out of crypto legislation." > > --said by several of us over the past year > > > The big mistake was ever introducing the SAFE and Pro-CODE bills, as it > brought the NSA and FBI out of their warrens and into the warrens of > Congress. Without any crypto bills at all, it is possible (though by no > means certain) that no legislation at all would have been introduced this > year. And the longer the wait the better. Some have complained that the status quo situation of export restrictions was unacceptable. Yet the spread of crypto has largely been unrestrained -- a stay of execution so to speak. The longer the status quo remains, the more ubiquitous crypto becomes and future legislative efforts are undermined. That said, I think these organizations made a strategic error. Had a draconian bill been introduced first, opposition probably would have played out differently in the press. We saw this with Clipper. I believe commercial interests played a large part in the push for legislation. Just another player in the game, I suppose. > But once SAFE and Pro-CODE were out there, on the table, the forces in > favor of a surveillance state began their lobbying in earnest, giving the > infamous "if you only knew what we knew" scare tactic pitches. Last minute > amendments and even complete bill replacements are easier to slip in than a > Big Brother bill from the gitgo. Sure enough, the tide is now moving > swiftly toward a future far, far, far worse than the mere annoyance of > export controls. You almost sound surprised. Did they really think Congressman would understand crypto? Congressmen _do_ understand law and order and protecting poor defenseless children from porn. They understand preventing "another Oklahoma. And it's an easy sell to their constituencies, too. The average schmoe may indeed *want* more freedom, but he also he wants to be protected. And he also has a limited understanding of the equation. The easiest explanation wins, of course. > to prison." The current language is of course a full-blown disaster. > Pandora's box was opened by SAFE and Pro-CODE. > > And so here we are. Multiple committees in both houses jockeying to see who > can clamp down the hardest on crypto. > > CDT, EPIC, and all the other Beltway insiders ought to think about this > mess. Sometimes it's better just to let sleeping dogs lay. Or lie. Or > whatever. Some people just don't get it. You'll never gain more freedom through more legislation. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omegam@cmq.com>|"When they kick out your front door, PGP Key fingerprint = | How are you gonna come? 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 | With your hands upon your head, 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 | Or on the trigger of your gun?" Send email with "get key" as the| -- The Clash, "Guns of Brixton" "Subject:" to get my public key | _London_Calling_ , 1979 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Apology to Netscape.
by carolann＠censored.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jeff Weintstein corrected me with: > This is what our press release said: > > An updated version of Netscape Navigator 1.1 for Mac OS > and Unix and Netscape Navigator 1.2 for Windows 3.1 and > Windows 95 will be available for downloading by existing > customers on the Internet next week. My apologies for the misquote. It only then makes the trading facts worse. Love Always, Carol Anne ps On the asides kind of things, do you realize the Netscape stock base of 5,000,000 shares is not a big sharebase? Coca-Cola's is 1,300,000,000. And by standards, your stock is really unstable. If Coca-Cola moves 3 points there'll be a trading halt, for the buying/selling imbalance will be too much. Even if only for 1 min. The trading halt gets the good or bad news onto "The Street". -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMGUCaYrpjEWs1wBlAQF9ZAP6AkMCsveSU/E8KFDi84urnAR2KlXT42rS l+9tHh33ZWbM6VmHUMkqelM11vc7zU1eWLhXlYHaoOqwGuTef9irQigbnr+HwYKL Px9480/Chm59RWCG6j4pp4d0xUQO9Pj0lbpIecn72eDYReRIgh5+MU0jOCNdUNLe RvP7XvYI570= =Nb9y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [017/713] ------------------- M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M MF=O0H+*%(-S%&>S%+FS&<LS%3(Q&#W1"<]2%`H^;,]^1C$'HBN8PX$4SYAU^ MPGD<Q0ZLA0D+,`MCT!LA**4M[-JPAK9F?40!AJ,CW"'%DR#:'9?Q)3[%<DQ` ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0

Amazon.com Books -- personal notification service
by eyes＠amazon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, as per your request, we at Amazon.com Books are notifying you of new books matching the following criteria: subjects include "Cryptography" The new books are listed at the end of this message. If you're interested in any of these books you can order them online at http://www.amazon.com/ Your most humble automated search agent, Eyes Amazon.com Books http://www.amazon.com/ P.S. Please don't forget that Amazon.com Books has over one million titles for you to choose from, many discounted 10 to 40 percent off the list price. If you have any online friends who might enjoy Amazon.com Books, we'd really appreciate you spreading the word! Thank you! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Advances in Cryptology--Eurocrypt-94 : Workshop on the Theory and Application of Cryptographic Techniques, Perugia, Italy, May 1994 : Proceedings)" by Alfredo De Santis List Price: currently unknown Subjects: Computer security, Cryptography Publisher: Binding: Hardcover Expected publication date: September 1995 ISBN: 3540601767 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Enigma : A Novel" by Robert Harris, David Rosenthal(Editor) List: $23.00 -- Amazon.com Price: $20.70 -- You Save: $2.30 (10%) Subjects: World War, 1939-1945, Secret service, Great Britain, Fiction, Cryptography Publisher: Random House Binding: Hardcover Expected publication date: October 1995 ISBN: 0679428879 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Pass It On! : All About Notes, from Secret Codes and Special Inks to Fancy Folds and Dead Man's Drops" by Sharon Bailly, Anne Canevari Green(Illustrator) List: $18.90 -- Amazon.com Price: $18.90 Subjects: Cryptography, Juvenile literature, Writing Publisher: Millbrook Pr Binding: Library Binding Expected publication date: September 1995 ISBN: 1562945882 ----- End of forwarded message from eyes(a)amazon.com -----

1 0

Distribute a key, go to prison.
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -=> Quoting In:tcmay@got.net to Harka <=- In> "Distribute a key, go to prison." In> Simple, by declaring that public keys themselves are crypto In> material, as the Brits did in their Trusted Third Parties In> draft proposal, and hence declaring that distribution of keys In> after the effective date of the legislation constitutes a In> violation. Give someone your key, either by placing it on In> keyservers or even by mailing it to them, and one has just In> "distributed" crypto. In> This will make the public key infrastructure essentially In> useless, as the public key servers go down, as corporations In> yank any directories they may have, and (possibly) as In> individuals stop putting PGP or S/MIME fingerprints or In> pointers in their messages. But then the same thing will happen as with "censored" web pages. Mirrors of key servers will be all over the world and render such laws kinda useless. You do have a point, however. I was thinking about a possible nightmare-scenario similar to that: Remailers (as crypto-providers and distributors) will be taken down in a syncronized effort in at least the western world. Non-government-approved crypto outlawed simultaneously. A few highly publicized cases of "violators" who use crypto anyway. Enough to scare the other 95 percent into complying. Once that happens it will be too late...at least for a few decades. Therefore crypto needs to be distributed and _used_ on a wide scale. Maybe spamming the Net (once :)) with PGP will at least make a nice publicity-stunt. Instead of "Adopt your legislator"-stuff it should be "Adopt your local computer-fellows" to use PGP, Remailers etc.. Those who have the resources should implement new remailers, key servers etc.. Cypherpunks don't whine! Cypherpunks have no need to be defensive! Cypherpunks write code! Ciao Harka ... "Use a Cipher - Be Free!" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNBsDNzltEBIEF0MBAQGxTAf/WkPXY3Or4Ces2N0PGfmrdQL7G7lqqjyw AVZVJv4/gsSXuiIoRIOh7GjVBWRMX4xli1835cvXrwwnQnw1YmOcaMBHLNvQ6kVT FVv3BVc8rcP5l5uaqJsByWHjXDa7kmuRGrmzP6mv7ZBQRbaiqGZp0E2vDZpxjhND he3HLCSR2TIzyR/o1pzdwFQzvfOSZh42yU5ssFLEcF5C0L/1KYMUJxyYYQ7aZoJN vFBwO5rx+nk+csRRNGVoUTDZ3NcZWf46h21+Gc8BF2L4zQN/3p4FJUswBHEFO87Q hqhA10lSrHdH2Lfb3ypFPlee7L1oaAx0T8dgBds/51R8geMp7NwI8Q== =It/0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: macworld crypto articles
by dmandl＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:49 PM 9/23/95, steven ryan wrote: >They searched for an applications programmer *UN*skilled at cryptography to >try and crack the password protection of the 8 best selling Mac programs. >Quicken 5.0 was cracked in 5 minutes. Adobe Acrobat in 2 hours. Yup, pretty amazing. I only skimmed the article, but I believe that out of all the programs he tried, there was only one whose crypto he couldn't crack. I found it all a little hard to believe. I mean, even if they used the most obsolete algorithm, wouldn't you have to know _something_ about cryptanalysis to crack it? Are these vendors just putting a "this file is locked with this such and such a password" string at the front of the file, or what? Interesting historical note: In my old APL days (early 80's), IBM used to lock their VSAPL workspaces with just such a scheme--a "locked bit" at some fixed position in the file. But there were enough other reasons not to use that horrible product... --Dave. -- Dave Mandl dmandl(a)panix.com http://wfmu.org/~davem

3 2

Amazon.com Books -- personal notification service (fwd)
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Amazon.com books (which someone mentioned here a few days ago) has a free personal notification service for new books of interest. They also claim not to sell your preferences if you so request. They have Springer-Verlag conference proceedings, and books by Hakim Bey. I spent a while telling them all about whose new books I'd like to hear about, and this came to me today. Adam ----- Forwarded message from eyes(a)amazon.com -----

1 0

Re: Real issue of crypto controls: security or taxation loss?
by jf_avon＠citenet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 13 Sep 97 at 20:53, iang(a)systemics.com wrote: > > Any comments about why we should *not* put most emphasis on the > > financial aspect of crypto? > > You answered it yourself. There are more palefaces than bright-eyed > injuns. > > Sun Tsu (from memory): select the battleground where you are strongest and > the enemy is weakest. > > A battle on the field of taxation is a wipeout. At least, on the field of > privacy, 4th amendment and so forth provides a few weapons for the Freedom > Fighters. Sorry to say, but I don't completely get you idiosyncratic language. My perception of it is that when you explain thoses things to productive individuals, i.e. individuals that get a lot of their money confiscated, most of them get quite interested while if you talk about the capability of talking dirty to your lover without your mother in law being able to know, they yawn faster than you can say "bit". Thus, IMO, brigning the discussion on the ground of taxation would be an attention getter. At least concerning the "guerilla" spreading of crypto, as Tim mentionned. Ciao jfa -- Jean-Francois Avon, Pierrefonds(Montreal) QC Canada JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers Instrumentation & control, LabView programming. PGP keys: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon and: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

1 0

Found on usenet: ACLU -- "Big Brother and the power of the Net"
by stevenw＠iglou.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Midpeninsula Chapter of American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California presents a free program, open to the public Speaker: Jim Warren, MicroTimes correspondent, originator of the West Coast Computer Faire, PBS Computer Chronicles and numerous other enterprises Topic: Big Brother and the power of the Net Time: Tuesday, October 17, 1995 at 8:00 pm Place: Mandarin Classic Restaurant; First & Main Streets, Los Altos There is no fee and no reservation is required for those coming just for the program, but this is the annual meeting of the Midpeninsula Chapter and is preceded by a reception and dinner that are open to the public, but for which a reservation is required (see below). 6:00 pm Reception and no-host bar 7:00 pm Dinner 8:00 pm Jim Warren speaks ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dinner Reservation Please return by Friday, October 6, 1995 Dinner reservation for ____ person(s) Check for $ _____ ($25 per person) is enclosed. Please make check payable to ACLU Mid-peninsula. Mail to: Iris Barrie If you have questions, call: 4250 El Camino, D-138 Iris Barrie at 415-856-0193 Palo Alto, CA 94306 -- Les Earnest (les(a)cs.stanford.edu) Phone: 415 941-3984 Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305 Fax: 415 941-3934 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steven Weller | "The Internet, of course, is more +1 415 390 9732 | than just a place to find pictures | of people having sex with dogs." stevenw(a)iglou.com | -- Time Magazine, 3 July 1995

1 0