December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: itar question
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:08 PM 9/11/95 -0400, you wrote: >If I create a set of patches to a PD or GNU software package (i.e. telnetd, >httpd) to support encryption (in particular SSL), can i put the patches up >on an ftp site, Or would i be in violation of itar, and therefore risk >getting hauled off by the feds? (i'm a us citizen living/working in the >states). If you create them in the states, and export them, and they contain crypto, you can be busted and convicted. If you put them on an ftp site without preventing or at least discouraging foreigners from accessing them, you can be busted, but you've at least got a potentially interesting court case about freedom of speech and the press, etc., for which you will need _very_ good lawyers unless either a) Phil Zimmermann gets indicted and acquitted first or b) you don't mind losing. If you do b) before Phil gets his day in court (as opposed to his months and months of grand jury), you risk creating a precedent that can help the Bad Guys convict him. If you create them in the states, and they contain hooks to call crypto, but don't actually contain the crypto themselves, then there's a question of whether they are components of a munition or technical data therefor, or whether they're just code that calls subroutines named "SSL_init()", "DES()", "RSA()", etc., which is behavior that's at least been threatened with FUD, but may be defendable in court. Your case is definitely stronger if your code is public domain (by the ITAR definitions, which are rather different than the copyright-related definitions), and of course if it's part of a working system of purely non-munitions code that just happens to have routines like "Do_Everything_Slowly()", "Reliability_Supporting_Algorithm(), and "SUPDUP_Simulation_Library" -- might even be fun to write a library like that, though I suppose certain companies might be upset if you called your Really_Special_Arithmetic library RSAREF :-) #--- # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0664 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281 #---

1 0

Brand e-cash implementation?
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Have there been any implementations, even as trials, of Brands' protocols? Do any ecash systems on the drawing board even include real user anonymity? A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | mfroomki(a)umiami.ir.miami.edu U. Miami School of Law | P.O. Box 248087 | It's hot here. And humid. Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | See (soon to move to its real home): http://www.law.miami.edu/~mfroomki

2 1

RE: Europe puts pressure on FCC over accounting rate moves
by Conor Lillis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Check the mail headers to see where it originated from ....., and then blast it with the greatest pile of trash you have, for about a fortnight. >---------- >From: John Young[SMTP:jya@pipeline.com] >Sent: 03 September 1997 15:36 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Re: Europe puts pressure on FCC over accounting rate moves > >So-called John Young wrote: >>Tim May wrote: > >>Announcing Black-and-WhiteNet (256-Gray, plaid, checkered, houndstoothed) >>Op Center (B&WOC(256-GPC-fang) which will minutely trivialize the most > >Not that it matters, but this is not mine. But not sure how to prove it, >probably >best to not try to be serious and thereby reify parody self-parody, >self-parody, >self-parody. > >

1 0

Elliptic Curve Public Key Crypto available
by Mike Rosing 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in the cypherpunks ftp site /pub/cypherpunks/ciphers are 2 ascii files. One contains code and the other contains documentation: eliptic.src and elliptic.doc. The code portion is a cat'ed block of files: headers, C sources and a set of prime numbers. The documentation attempts to explain the math, but it does help if you already know number theory. It hopefully isn't necessary. The code is a specific implementation of one particular type of math. It violates no known patents. It appears to work. The academics claim that elliptic curves over Galois Fields are really secure. Preliminary testing bears this out, changing one bit of input gives uniformly distributed "random" output. Previous to the availabilty of 100 MHz processors this method of public key crypto was ridculously slow. The only versions were laboratory curiosities implemented in ASIC hardware. Code, if it exists, is not in the public domain. The code is based on several papers (some 15 references are listed in the doc file, 6 are more directly important) and a couple of books. It includes optimal normal basis math, elliptic curve math, and public key secret sharing. With 128 bit symmetric encryption, a 226 bit field is more than sufficient to hide it. I believe it is really strong crypto. I did not invent anything. I just implemented a few textbook examples that nobody else has. Since it's from public domain sources, and it's now public domain software, it can be freely used. You get what you pay for. Code is a living thing. It takes lots of people lots of time to make any code useful. The purpose of this code is to show that there is more than one way to create public key cryptosystems and to bring academic discussion into the everyday realm of real world problems. I suggest you get a copy to work with before it becomes illegal ;-) Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike

1 0

Re: [LONG} Funding Cypherpunks Projects
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:54 PM 9/7/97 -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote: >At 3:35 pm -0400 on 9/3/97, Tim May wrote: ... >Certainly a bass-ackward way to do it. Unfortunately, that's the way Disney >did it, or L.B. Mayer did it, or Gates, or Edison, or Parekh did it. They >had a picture in their head of the way the world worked, or should work, >they did things, as cheaply as possible, which should work in that picture, >and they were right. They still invested something, is my point, whether it >was their money or their time, or their inspiration. ... Gates? The closest he had to a grand vision is being able to predict the financial gain behind programming computers. That in my opinion was marketing savvy, not a grand vision, for lack of a readily available substitute. You know about traf-o-data. This was a far cry from what he now has. He rode the wave by changing with the times, hedging his bets, being in the right place at the right time, etc. That, however is about all I know as the book he wrote was a little too basic alone the lines of my interests for my tastes and I had to put it down for more enjoyable activities like staring at the wall. When I can next stomache reading more kindergarten level computer analogies, I'll finish reading his book. ... >> Asking Jim Clarke or Bill Gates to opine on his strategies for success is >> not quite as pointless, but is not real useful either. Ask also Manny >> Fernandez about Gavilan Computer. Or ask the financiers of Ovation, >> Processor Technology, Mad Computers, Symbolics, Thinking Machines, Trilogy, >> or a hundred other examples of companies that burned through a billion >> dollars of hard-earned investor money. ... Interesting note. I heard that the guy that started Thinking Machines is now an imagineer at one of the evil empires. Who would have thought that one of the guys responsible for parallel computing development would now be building theme park rides. BTW. I love this little game of artistic response. It actually reads like a conversation and makes it a whole lot easier to take the origional post out of context. Remind me to use line numbers when I respond to one of your posts with a long message. Or at least number the paragraphs. Not that it would matter.

3 3

Re: GAK patents, anyone?
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:34 AM 9/9/97 +0200, Anonymous wrote: ... >----- >http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/terrog.txt >----- > >Petitioning to Make Special Patent Applications Relating to >Inventions For Countering Terrorism > >New patent applications are normally taken up for >examination in the order of their effective United States >filing date. However, the Commissioner may provide that a >patent application will be advanced out of turn for >examination if a petition to make the patent application >special under 37 CFR 1.102(c) or (d) is granted. > >On July 31, 1996, Vice President Gore stated that "[i]t is >imperative that those seeking to prevent terrorist >activities have all of the tools necessary to accomplish >their task." In view of the importance of developing >technologies for countering terrorism and the desirability >of prompt disclosure of advances made in these fields, the >Patent and Trademark Office is establishing a new category >for petitions to accord "special" status to patent >applications relating to counter-terrorism inventions. >International terrorism as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2331 is >"activities that >(A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life >that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United >States or of any State, or that would be a criminal >violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United >States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to >intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to >influence the policy of a government by intimidation or >coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by >assassination or kidnaping." ... Back up just a minute. Aren't inventions protected if the patent is pending? If not, why do such well known companies who undoubtly have savvy legal council produce products stamped "patent pending"? Is this just a way of forcing those who take this special treatment to bow to additional government restrictions? An action which they would have to do as if they didn't, a competitor might get the inventors idea patented before the inventor? Sounds more like a manner to place certain inventions that are crucial to "national security" under tighter regulations. How long before they expand the definition? Because, if they impose additional contractual conditions upon the advanced patent, this could mean that crypto could be regulated constitutionally in the future by regulating who the inventor could share it with.

1 0

Government filed 9th Circuit Bernstein brief asking for full stay
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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. They also propose that the entire appeal be done on an expedited basis. 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. These will be up as page images on the Web shortly, under http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/Legal/ John Gilmore

1 0

Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), was Democracy is the true enemy...
by Brian B. Riley 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Democracy is as tyrannical as any other system if rights aren't respected. >In those cases where limited government might have to make a decision >concerning all, and there is time to debate the issue, democracy (either >representative or direct) is the most just method. I see what we have at the moment is a tyranny over the majority by the tiny minority of the population that happen to hold the reigns of power ... look at what Freeh et al. is trying to do ... shoving it right down our throats ... as we all used to say after Nam ... BOHICA! Brian B. Riley --> http://www.macconnect.com/~brianbr For PGP Keys - Send Email Subject "Get PGP Key" "...if you drink much from a bottle marked 'poison,' it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later" -- Lewis Carroll

1 0

Re: Gao's Chaos Cryptosystem Algorithm
by Sean Roach 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:28 PM 9/8/97 PDT, Nobuki Nakatuji wrote: > >> >>I will just repeat Prof. Choate's question, how do you generate Ch. >> >> >Ch generate > >begin >Xn+1=aXn(1.0-Xn) >return Xn+1 >end > >Do you understand Japanese ? >If you understand Japanese, >I will send theis of Gao's Chaos Cryptosystem to you. > I don't understand Japanese, barely got through discrete structures, and hate calculus. But I'd like to see the source for the aXn() function.

1 0

Re: Government shows its hand...good news!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May wrote: > > At 8:12 PM -0700 9/9/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >Let me clarify my earlier comments. The language sez Defense & Commerce > >together can veto crypto exports, and: > > > >"Decisions made by the Secretary of Commerce with the concurrence of the > >Secretary of Defense with respect to exports of encryption products under > >this section shall not be subject to judicial review." > > Then this is _not_ the sense in which you seemed to be implying that the > Supreme Court would be precluded from declaring the law unconstitutional. Read it and think about it... This kind of bureaucratic dildo is a subtle way of affording the Lying Nazi Fucks (TM) in power a way to _interpret_ the law unconstitutionally without having it subject to "judicial review." Ipso facto, you are mucho fuckedo by an unconstitutional interpretation of a constitutional law. Add to the above, the fact that unelected semi-secret committees of administration appointees will be exchanging bum-buddy favors with the people doing the interpreting, and you will find a set of 'established' procedures--from the White House down to the lowly clerk that stamps "Denied" on your application to speak your native tongue during overseas phone calls--which will _support_ the fascist's case if you ever _do_ manage to get them into court. (Much like the post of our Cpunk avon lady who sent the CFA post down showing how the Alberta lawyer got suckered into comparing his stance against gun registration to an 'established' unconstitutional law against handgun registration.) The deciding factor in a case such as this, from my experience, is when the government whines about the terrible burden they would be placed under if they were forced to go out and by an "Accepted" rubber-stamp, at which point the judge decides that this would take away from the available funds for nuclear warheads, and then National Security would be compromised. Ruling: Citizens, assume the position. PositionMonger

1 0