December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

At 10:05 PM 9/11/97 -0700, James S. Tyre wrote: >So, the last rhetorical question -- how do you convince someone who's >never used a browser (the vast majority of the voting populace, I'd >think) why crypto is important? > "Excuse me, Mr. Man On The Street...would you give an IRS auditor the keys to your house, without him telling you if he would ever use them or if you were being audited?" "Of course not!" "How would you feel about the government requiring that when you buy a lock, you have to give a key to the IRS, and that they ought to be allowed to sneak into your house at will, without you even being notified you've been charged with a crime?" "That's absurd!" "Well, that's what they're trying to do now." "I'll write my Congressman or woman right now!" (Lizard is currently DLing the PGP plug-in for his beloved Eudora. Never let it be said I can't be a nonconformist like everybody else!) <SETH>And here we see more of the cult's recruitment. Note how he always talks about the *GOVERNMENT* and the *IRS*. Why doesn't he talk about Pepsi or GM wanting the keys to your house? More of this 'government bad, business good' propaganda we've all grown so sick and tired of, being shoved down our throats. Small wonder this list has gone to hell!" </SETH>

4 6

Different Ways to Kill AOL Members
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Different Ways to Kill AOL Members: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

Subj: Different Ways to Kill AOL Members Date: 97-09-12 01:05:58 EDT From: remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org (bureau42 Anonymous Remailer) Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Different Ways to Kill AOL Members: 1. Just thrust your head and shoulders thru their bedroom window :):) 2. 3. 4. 5.

1 0

Docs in Bernstein converted to HTML
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've converted two of the newer documents in _Bernstein v. Dept of State_ into HTML; but I'd appreciate it if someone felt like proofreading/comparing them to the original images, it's late and my eyes are tired. Judge Patel's Order of 9/9/97, staying some of the injunctive relief: HTML at <http://www.parrhesia.com/bernstein/stay.html> image at <http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/Legal/970909_stay_order. images/index.html> Declaration of William Reinsch in support of emergency motion for total stay: HTML at <http://www.parrhesia.com/bernstein/reinsch.html> image at <http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/Legal/970910_reinsch_dec l.images/index.html> -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It is quite probable that this has been said before. In case it hasn't, however, I feel compelled to point out that mandatory key escrow/recovery could likely mean an economic disaster of unimaginable proportions. Okay, key escrow, whether by the goobermint or a contracted third-party, is beginning to scare the living crap out of me. Okay, let's assume that the ammended SAFE passes and is promptly signed into law(despite what the administration says, I don't think anyone believes for a second that it would be signed without hesitation). It's a simple matter for the Commerce Dept. to modify their review criteria to specify that the key escrow/recovery feature be enabled and that the end user not be able to disable it. This obviously doesn't affect anyone who can get their hands on the source and comment out a line or two, but think about what happens with big corporations, especially financial ones. It's highly likely that a good number of them will use crypto software just the way Big Brother would like them to, happily sending their keys off so that our friends in Washington can keep them nice and safe. Now think about this: You're Joe Random Govt. Worker at the official secret key repository, and there's a budget crisis going on - instead of paychecks, you're getting I.O.U.'s. Your terminal has access to thousands, perhaps millions, of secret keys. You grab one of CitiBank's, forge a few transactions, and 30 seconds later your Swiss bank account is a few million dollars fatter and according to the digital signature, the transaction originated in L.A.. Of course, one doesn't even have to be an underpaid govt. worker to join in on the fun. Just find a buffer overflow in the key repository's daemon software and trick it into tacking on a few secret keys with its "Big Brother thanks you for your cooperation." packet. Considering that even the CIA can't keep their severs secure, why should ANYONE, even thouse naive enough to trust the govt. to respect their privacy, ever trust such a corrupt and insecure organization with their encyption keys. Along the same lines, it's almost certain that someone is eventually going to fat-finger some code and keys are going to get sent in the clear, posted publicly, or something equally bad - with the government running the "key management infastructure", it'll probably be a 12 year old kid who got bored with Minesweeper who causes the global economic collapse.

1 0

Re: Taxless society concerns
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Warpy wrote: > First off. In such a society, who cares for the old, the sick, and the > infirm? How is such care going to be payed for? How will basic services be > maintained without the necessary taxes required to pay for them? Haven't you ever heard of ZPG? The problem with Medicare is that the taxpayers are paying to keep the old people alive, no matter how close to death they are!! Then, on top of that, we give them free money! Come on people, we already have nigh 6 billion people on this planet, I think we can stand to lose anybody over 65. > But the question remains. In such a taxless society, and little or no > government, how are those less fortunate than us going to be cared for? As for the less fortunate, welcome to Evolution 101: Survival of the Fittest, where fit means good education, good job, and enough money to giev your kids the same. -- Run.exe * Value Your Privacy? The Government Doesn't. Say 'No' to Key Escrow! * Adopt Your Legislator - http://www.crypto.com/adopt "If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith." -- Albert Einstein runexe(a)ntplx.net http://www.ntplx.net/~runexe/ PGP encrypted mail prefered

1 0

3% to Freedom
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just heard a Canadian MP state that he was voting in favour of gun registration because 52% of his constituents were in favor of it. Killing 3% of the people to save the rights of 48% of them seems like a fair trade-off to me. We could kill them with hammers until we killed enough that they passed hammer registration laws. Then we could switch to scissors. Then forks. Then rocks. Of course, it would be impossible to bust all the people who were in possession of unregisterd rocks in their yards, so they would probably have to use selective enforcement against just blacks and longhairs and the like. Am I ready to run for public office, or do I need to get stupider? If so, then I propose that we start killing people by filling their mouths with dirt, then we can pass dirt registration laws. Then we can kill people by filling their lungs with air until they burst and we can pass air registration laws. Then we can leave people out in the sun until they die and pass sun registration laws. "The reason I pulled you over, guys, is because the sun came up. Unless one of you cops to possessing it, I'm going to have to take you all in." Am I stupid enough to be a cop, now? If not, then we can kill people by taking them to the roofs of buildings and throwing them to the ground. Then we can pass roof and ground registration laws. "Hey, pal. Your feet are on the ground. You got a permit?" "Sorry pal, this permit is for a different piece of ground. I'm going to have to take you in. And, since the sun is out, you're going to get an extra five years for possession of the sun in the commission of a crime."

1 0

Soldiers
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there a small country that a thousand of us could go to and get citizenship and then have the country declare war on the U.S. after we are all back in the country? If a thousand of us could kill as many people as we could until we got caught, then we could kill a lot of people who are bad for the country and then once we're all caught the small country could surrender and we would all have to be released as prisoners of war, right? We could all be privates. They can't blame privates because they have to follow orders. The guys in the small country could make old guys who were dying soon the leaders, and then when it was time to quit, they could overthrow them and get US government aid. They could set the old guys trial dates for two years down the road and then send them home to die. I saw a guy get killed once and they told the guy who killed him that he shouldn'a done it and they sent him home and said we'll call you and then they took the dead guys sister to jail because she wouldn't stop saying fuck. When they were taking her away I told her she should kill the cops and then go home and wait for them to call. How about if we made a law that you had to kill the president and your congressmen and senators and if you didn't you had to pay a $500.00 fine every year? Do you think they would make sure we all made some money? How about a law here you could kill any politician that forgot to call you sir or ma'am? Or who forgot your birthday? We could save a lot of money just by putting all the politicians who are running for office on a stage and then killing them at random until we had the right number left. Then they would have to think about if they really wanted it. How about if we let people be elected on a first-come first-serve basis but then we could vote to kill them any time we wanted. Think they would do things to make us not want to kill them instead of the other way around like it is now? How about if we killed all of them and just pretended there was someone running the country. Is that a good idea?

1 0

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