December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[Fwd: Fwd: Engineers] Fwd: Engineers
by EFF 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: economic espionage (@#$%^&*)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>> >It was said that Pres. Clinton had given a speech while >>> >visiting the CIA HQ in Langley/Virginia. He allegedly >>> >said in this speech that obtaining industrial >>> >informations has the highest priority and this were the >>> >new task for the spies. Dr. John Deutsch, speaking to the National Press Club, also mentioned economic espionage, with the State Department as a primary customer, but was concerned about definitions of goals, etc. He did reassure the NPC that the CIA would continue to work with drug dealers and corrupt South American military and other scum who have information to sell, as well as cooperating more closely with the FBI and DEA, but on the other hand he does apparently view domestic operations as clearly outside the CIA's job. One set of content in his speech was the planned combination of the various satellite data interpretation organizations into one group of CIA/Pentagon/NRO/NSA/etc. ObCrypto: One questioner asked him about the growing use of encoding and would the CIA be able to keep up eavesdropping on people. "We're very good at eavesdropping" was his main reply; he did acknowledge that there was an issue but didn't go into the party line about needing to have escrow to get GAK. Clinton, meanwhile, reassured guests at a $1000/plate fundraising lunch that the Republicans' economic plans would mainly affect the poor and wouldn't trouble the rich too much... :-) #--- # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0664 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281 #---

2 1

Crypto-czar nominated for Commerce Dept undersecretary (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 16:26:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Crypto-czar nominated for Commerce Dept undersecretary Clinton Nominates Aaron to Commerce Department Post WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- President Clinton today announced his intent to nominate Ambassador David L. Aaron for the position of Under Secretary for International Trade at the Department of Commerce. Aaron, of Sag Harbor, N.Y., has extensive experience in both national and international issues. Since 1993, he has served as U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In 1996, the White House announced his appointment as Special Envoy for Cryptography, giving him the responsibility of promoting the growth of international electronic commerce and robust, secure global communications in a manner that protects the public safety and national security. In 1962, Aaron entered the Foreign Service where he served in a variety of posts including NATO, the United Nations, and the Strategic Arms talks. After leaving the Foreign Service, he continued in government at the National Security Council, on the staff of Sen. Walter Mondale, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and as Deputy National Security Advisor to President Carter. Upon leaving government, Aaron became vice president for mergers and acquisitions at Oppenheimer and Co. Prior to becoming ambassador, he was a senior fellow at the Twentieth Century Fund, served on the board of the National Democratic Institute and the International League for Human Rights, and was a member of the Overseas Development Council and the Council on Foreign Relations. He is a recipient of the National Defense Medal, the Pentagon's highest civilian award, and the author of three novels. Aaron is a graduate of Occidental College and Princeton University. As head of the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration, Aaron will be responsible for policies and programs that promote world trade and strengthen the international trade and investment position of the United States.

1 0

Re: Renaming TEA remailer (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 17:08:51 -0700 > From: Lance Cottrell <loki(a)infonex.com> > Subject: Re: Renaming TEA remailer > I really don't understand this reaction. We asked Antonomasia nicely to > rename his remailer. He very kindly agreed. The Trademark registration has > been filed, but not yet approved. It is a long process. Seems it is in his best interest to not change it. Not only does he get notoriety but he weakens your trademark claim by demonstrating that you don't use it exclusively and that it has a history preceeding your claims. Also, since he has been so kind to work with you have you recompensed him for his loss at your gain? ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: amp(a)pobox.com > Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 10:32:28 -0500 > Subject: Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), (fwd) > You miss the point entirely. This is =not= supposed to be a democracy. That > is why we have a constitution (theoretically a set of restrictions upon the > powers of government), and bill of rights. This is most certainly a democracy, it's called a representative democracy. That we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights is a measure of the founding fathers wisdom but by no means are either required to have a democracy, nor do either by definition eliminate a governmental form from being a democracy. > > > 2. In a democracy, you can't have property rights because 51% can > > > capriciously decide to confiscate anyone's property. That depends on how the founders define the democracy. The definition of a democracy does NOT define the system put in place merely who has a say in how it runs. You're painting with way too broad a brush. Like most things simply being a cat does not equate all cats to be the same. This also applies to democracies, there is plenty of room to manuever when designing it. > > Since there are no true democracies extant your point is moot. > > There have been, that is why the point is not moot. The point is, we are > becoming one, with the advent of instant polling and politicians and > citizens who obviously can't read as simple a document as the constitution. Where? When? No government ever implimented by man has ever been a true anything. Not democracy, communism, etc. They are all hybrids of one sort or another. For there to be a true democracy as you seem to define it we would require every man, woman, and child to carry a vote and be required to vote on each and every issue. No government in history has had this much prosperity or homogoneity in the desires of the people. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Here's the info you requested
by 84903020＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"><FONT COLOR="#00FFFF" SIZE=3> Everybody loves Mr. Chicken! Kids are going wild over Mr. Chicken. Parents laugh hysterically at the sight of him. Why spend $50 on toys that your kids forget about the next day when for pennies they can have a Mr Chicken that they'll enjoy for months? For full details, Email MrChicken(a)answerme.com </FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3>

1 0

ANNOUNCE: NIST AES Advanced Encryption System development effort
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NIST is putting out a call for candidates for an Advanced Encryption System, following work and comment periods earlier this year. http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/aes/aes_home.htm Symmetric block cypher, 128-bit blocks, keylengths 128, 192, 256. No mention of escrow >Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology > formerly National Bureau of Standards >Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are those of the sender > and do not reflect NIST policy or agreement. >Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:50:11 -0400 >To: foti(a)st1.ncsl.nist.gov >From: Jim Foti <foti(a)st1.ncsl.nist.gov> >Subject: Update on AES development effort > >Folks, > >Please take a look at <http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/aes/aes_home.htm> >for the AES call for candidate algorithms, which is expected to be >published in the Federal Register on Friday, Sept. 12. > >As is indicated in the announcement, clarification questions should be >directed to "aesquest(a)nist.gov". > >Once again, this "FYI" message is being sent to all of you who either >registered for the April '97 workshop, attended that workshop, or provided >comments on the original Federal Register notice in January. We really >appreciate your interest in this development effort. > >Regards, >Jim Foti > >

1 0

medical records next. does it ever end?
by Attila T. Hun 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- ref: http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/news/washpol/medical-files.html and, of course, we all know that our friendLY, loyal, trustworthy, and obedient police departments can keep a secret and protect the innocent. NYT lead article today indicates Clinton bowing to LEOs to: ...gain broad access to patients' medical records, with hardly any restrictions on use or redisclosure of the data. "We recommend that providers and payers be permitted to rely on the statement of law-enforcement officials that an inquiry meets these standards," the administration says.... and we all know the police never lie when theY're fishing! The administration proposal would not require law-enforcement agencies to get court orders or to notify patients when they seek medical records. Patients would not be assured of an opportunity to challenge the disclosure of their files, though the records could later be used against them in investigations or prosecutions. fourth amendment mean _anything_ to these petty dictators? has the US become just another bananna republic at the interest of the power brokers? are we stretching the idea of a republic a bit thin? "Our recommendations accommodate the interests of law enforcement rather well," said an administration official who helped draft the proposal. "The Justice Department got almost everything it wanted." THIS is what is wrong with the US! the courts have become adversarial playgrounds for the prosecutors for the benefit of the "state" the old rule used to be if you were _charged_ by the Feds, start plea bargaining --if you go to court, the sentence will triple. just "fuck" the concept of innocent until proven guilty, or 'hey, man, you were arrested, weren't you?' Andrew Fois, an assistant attorney general, said, "There has been no documented history suggesting that law-enforcement agencies have abused their current access to medical records, or that existing federal and state law is inadequate to guard against such a danger." LIAR! I'll bet this man would lie to his own mother if it meant his courtroom body count ratio increased. What state or federal law? there is no restriction to LEO access currently; Congress is considering bills on protecting access, and the LEOs want total exemption from the rules. TIME FOR THE INTERMOUNTAIN EMPIRE TO SECEDE FROM THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT IN WASHINGTON. -- "Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other." --Benjamin Franklin ______________________________________________________________________ "attila" 1024/C20B6905/23 D0 FA 7F 6A 8F 60 66 BC AF AE 56 98 C0 D7 B0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be iQCVAwUBNBbEvb04kQrCC2kFAQHysAQAuRJTdS96yudsRASI2x3xVHey1N/hYYfN NCl/9FAr+TJsF+yWtSUhDLnE/1MODaIPjWomsDOla282kmrMZUQQa8CuYyw3e/xu uAwuw3bbqUfvJ13afwc7ddgusyAxbtDDxICv/ys/rFvHJCK9Ri8tKYKA6/7OZXqj L+6tueo6dI8= =ykmY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Snuffle Destroys United States: Film at 11
by Mike Duvos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John Gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com> writes: > Today the Government filed a 22-page brief arguing to the > 9th Circuit Court that it would be so injurious to the > national security for Prof. Bernstein to be able to publish > his Snuffle 5.0 software on the Internet, that a complete > stay of Judge Patel's injunction is needed. > The brief is accompanied by two seven-page personal > declarations, one from William P. Crowell, Deputy Director > of NSA, and one from William A. Reinsch, Under Secretary for > Export Administration. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought "Snuffle" was some simple-minded cipher designed to test ITAR. I didn't think it was something anyone would choose to incorporate into a serious product. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ enoch(a)zipcon.com $ via Finger $ {Free Cypherpunk Political Prisoner Jim Bell}

2 1

Re: Credit Card might-as-well-equal SSN (fwd)
by Lindsay Haisley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I was under the impression that using a SSN for identification purposes was illegal. A while back I went to a company that rented sound equipment to pick up some equipment for a job, and was asked for my SSN as part of my credit application. I told them that I believed that it was illegal to require an SSN and they said, in effect, if you want to rent from us, you have to give us your SSN. When I got home, I called the Social Security Administration office in Austin and after being bounced around among lots of people who knew absolutely nothing about the subject, I finally reached someone who informed me that this practice is perfectly legal as long as you're not >required< to give your SSN. Since I didn't, in theory, have to do business with these folks, they therefore apparently had every right to require my SSN as a condition of doing business with them. In point of fact, when the incident occurred, it was getting late, I had to have the equipment for my job, and so I gave them what they wanted. At 09:35 PM 9/10/97 -0500, Jim Choate did speak as follows.... >>Questions: Is this for real? How wide spread is this? What does U-Haul do >>with your SSN? How difficult is it for someone (company) to get your SSN >>when you use your credit card? > >Did you ask if it was a U-Haul requirement or a Texas one? > >If you've ever given your SSN when applying for a credit card, >you can be pretty sure they've got your SSN in the credit report. >Perhaps if you've got a secured debit card of some sort >you've been able to keep it separate from your other credit history, >if any, but most people have slipped at least once, or had an account >at a bank that collected the SSN for tax reasons and then included it >in credit reports. Lindsay Haisley (______) FMP Computer Services (oo) "The bull fmouse(a)fmp.com /------\/ stops here!" Austin, Texas, USA / | || 512-259-1190 * ||---|| * * * * * * ~~ ~~ http://www.fmp.com

1 0