December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Mandatory Voluntary Cencorship in OZ
by Apache 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

full text at: http://www.australian.aust.com/archive/15-Sep/n01.htm Howard moves to censor secrets By defence writer DON GREENLEES September 15: The Federal Government is renewing efforts to protect national defence and intelligence secrets under a revived system of media censorship. Cabinet's National Security Committee decided early this month to start talks with media executives on voluntary censorship and backed away from threats by the former government to impose $1 million ($US723,000) fines over publication of official secrets. But the Government will put the onus on the media to make voluntary censorship work or ultimately face legislation that would impose huge fines for disclosure of sensitive military and intelligence information. It comes almost two years after the Labor government reached an impasse with media executives over a proposal for a "voluntary" system backed by $1 million fines for a prohibited broadcast or publication. The move followed revelations by disaffected former Australian Secret Intelligence Service agents of spying operations and about the bugging by Australian intelligence of foreign embassies, including China's and Japan's. Senior sources said the six-member Cabinet security committee, chaired by John Howard, had decided to take a more conciliatory line than the former government by first trying a genuinely voluntary system to maximise the chances of winning media agreement.

1 0

Re: none
by Arunas Norvaisa 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 12:09 AM 97.09.14 -0700, SL Baur wrote (and I quoted): > >bureau42 Anonymous Remailer <remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org> writes: > >> Since Sept. 11th: > >> http://www.ifi.uio.no/pgp/ > >> Forbidden > >> Your client is not allowed to access the requested object. > >Something is seriously wrong with the ifi.uio.no server. You can't get >much of anything off of it. I doubt the general outage is pgp related, >this isn't the first time there have been problems with it. > > Try this one instead...... http://zone.pspt.fi/pgp/ - -- greetz... Arunas Norvaisa - little guy, The Masses Inc. check the message headers for PGP key information _OR_ send mail with subject 'send key' to mailto:arunas@post1.com PGP for idiots page <http://www1.omnitel.net/an> and a US mirror site <http://www.post1.com/~arunas> IBM: I'm Beyond Mistakes -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: latin1 Comment: Watch out for the Big Brother iQEPAwUBNBz6uSOu3BjJDX4hAQExswfQvEPFzM9qS7XYNev427X7qtVTA5T4WU0H OYeGOCgX3E34IqOboBU0gnl7ngB09f760W/BPvxb8e1ijMniaukTUPjTMi1aTSa4 EyWpWsGx5rWUrpvQnotb9MhqTkO5Crci+FxNffjj9FA2ZMYaksOOkrN2HN3wv7hm mRxSxLY4PKf2pYzPlKTAYbNkicqtzwhicEjMoKerUDGy8CIOkgslUHGEFT4JK5f9 7oM3/Y8Z1ZTDT0jL80ECeHe4jA6YKVKYtuVMxbdfNnKWYSK9UXmTWRSYKywBakSL JZIBoUM64INh19UsEGolNzPUOAB5GWqO/bB5WbIXHCoong== =83mA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Ignore
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Gag test. Ignore.

1 0

Report on Privacy Loss
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

NYT has a front page special report today on the booming computer investigative industry which is using legal and illegal means to mine and peddle personal, corporate and political data, dirt and damaging secrets. As one nabbed dick says, it's no longer ex-intel and ex-feebs who are doing it, now the techies and beagles of all sorts have rubbed their eyes at the amazing golddust on their screens. It might boost the demand for crypto and other essential tools for privacy, or it may just lead to more cyber-TLAs and -bounties willfully busting the wrong Jim Bells while warning their still-connected buddies of "court-okayed" wiretaps and traps. http://www.nytimes.com

1 0

Access to Plaintext: An Obvious Consequence
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text From: Somebody Date: Tue, 16 Sep 1997 10:12:47 -0400 (EDT) To: rah(a)shipwright.com Subject: Access to Plaintext: An Obvious Consequence Bob, If no encryption product can be sold that can't decrypt everything it encrypts, then no public key systems can come to market. That would effectively eliminate the entire range of encryption products of interest to you. Surely, this is clear? <Somebody's .sig> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

What version of PGP?
by bret＠bjohns.win.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I got PGP 262 off MIT. The file was PGP262si.tar Is this the international version with week crypto? os is it the US version? Thanks....

2 1

Re: Defense against a class of programming bugs
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Unfortunately, strdup is not posix compliant. If you want to use >it and maintain portability, you'll have to write your own. Er, you're kidding, right? drand48 isn't in Posix either, for example. Someone who runs on Motif and Mac has strdup as the least of their worries. But just in case it's stopping anyone: char *strdup(const char *x) { char *p; return (p = malloc(strlen(x) + 1)) ? strcpy(p, x) : 0; } (Deliberately written too-cleverly. Lame compilers will need to cast to 0)

1 0

John Deutsch
by Rev. Ben 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Is coming to Yale tomorrow and I'm going to get the opportunity to have tea with him(and about 10 other folks). Is there anyone here that has anything that they want me to ask the man? Ben. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Auto-signed with Bryce's Auto-PGP v1.0beta3 iQB1AwUBMGYm+r5ALmeTVXAJAQFeIQL9FmuCB93W4XANBdyQBOg224WW/sVetRI8 AZhM3HHjvNJ41YT7LCnRjLeRU1nUeBX1cI5MWBLNmKQXqR8+XmqboVU/k3jOxndy bNhH4rqb/zgH1cD65lo7IbTsVOJoHeDe =18Lm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Patents and trade secrets was: Encryption algorithms used in PrivaSoft
by David Van Wie 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry E. Metzger at Sep 22, 95 01:19:37 am wrote: >David Van Wie writes: >> It just moves the prior art date from the date of invention to the date >> of filing the patent application. >What happens if the chronology goes like this ? > >(0) Alice invents a snaffleblort. >(1) Bob invents a snaffleblort. >(2) Bob files for a patent on a snaffleblort. > >From what you said, it would appear that Alice's prior art won't count when >it comes to considering the validity of Bob's patent claim. Is that correct ? Unless Alice made public statements about her invention, you are right. Something becomes prior art when it is made public. If she (like most patent lawyers will advise) kept her mouth shut about what she had invented until her patent application was filed, she would lose under first to file rules (assuming step three is that Alice files a patent application). A quick trip to the soapbox: First to files rules are good for big companies, and bad for small inventors. Big companies have many lawyers, and know exactly how each step of the process works. Small inventors usually don't know the process as well, usually have to scrape together the thousands of dollars necessary to pursue a patent, and then find a good lawyer that they can trust -- all while ensuring that they don't break one of the rules about how you must treat your invention before filing. Moral: First to invent rules, like "natural copyright," are good for the little guy because they base patent decisions on when the important things (i.e. invention and reduction to practice) happened, not administrative things (i.e. complex documents filed with dotted i's and crossed t's).

3 2

Re: John Deutsch
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Is there anyone here that has anything that they want me to ask the man? Why did he argue against MIT getting rid of Lincoln Labs?

1 0