December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: Do the Right Thing
by Pat Farrell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

TCMay writes to c'punks: > Well, people discuss what they think is important. Those who don't think > this topic is important are of course not compelled to participate in the > debate. True. Although calling it a debate is being loose with terms. Rant is more accurate. > These two points are what many of us are concerned about. Some may argue > "Wait until it's illegal, then protest," but I think the Cypherpunks list > has shown a particular strength in spotting "early warning signals" well > in advance of actual developments, thus enabling us to get our ducks in > line and hit the ground running (to mix some metaphors). Hey, I was a fan of Trial Balloon... But lets react to reality, not net-rumours. Nothing to date has indicated that domestic GAK will be manditory, except, as I noted in the last post, DERD, Freeh, and Grevildinger [sp] We are failing to get our message accross to the Joe Sixpack's of the world. We are starting to get get some coverage in the press (USA Today, NY Times, etc.) but this is a slow education effort. Preaching to the choir is pretty pointless. >>It was quite clearly implied at the September meetings that the >> Government expected that vendors would do only one version, GAK'd. >> This would allow the LEAs to tromple all over US civil liberties >> at will. > This was my point about having a domestic and an export version. Don't we agree on this? "tromping" on civil liberties sucks. That is what I wrote last message. > Pat, if the policies and technologies surrounding key escrow are not > relevant to the themes of the Cypherpunks list, I surely don't know what > is! The policies and technologies are relevant. hacks to disable Netscape because people are too lazy to see that they are already doing multiple version, or that others provide browsers, is noise. IMHO. If we want to find about the policies, and given that there is a huge, public meeting in two days, can't we wait to get some facts? > People talk about what matters to them, for the most part, and attempts to > "steer" the list to other topics are best done by example. That is, write > up a really interesting article on some "relevant" topic and perhaps > people will discuss it. That seems better than saying a discussion of GAK > is not relevant. I have not said any such thing. I have attemped to write up actual, factual recordings of GAK at NIST. What I am saying is that bitching about Netscape is a waste of list bandwidth. If you think Netscape is full of fascists, use another browser. Or, heaven forbid, write code. > And the NIST/NSA meeting is coming up in a few days...what better time to > discuss some issues, and thus possibly trigger some ideas or arguments for > attendees to make, than now? What's the point of waiting until it's over, > when all we can do then is complain? What news is there on this topic? I am a privacy guy. GAK sucks. So what is news? Is it news that the Crypto-guys think GAK sucks? As TCMay has written, check the archives. Lets not cover already covered ground. Come on, lets either talk about news, action (Ian's, RJC's, Daimen's, ... hacks) or what we can really do to be effective. My point, which I clearly failed to make, was that Netscape has to date, done a pretty good job. The quotes from Jim Clark indicate that his is clueless. Fine, use another browser. > I think key escrow, whether of the Clipper variety of the SKE variety, is > central to the themes of the group. Netscape bombs are not relevant to what I think is the charter of Cypherpunks. Pat Pat Farrell Grad Student http://www.isse.gmu.edu/students/pfarrell Info. Systems & Software Engineering, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA PGP key available on homepage #include <standard.disclaimer>

1 0

Evil Prosecutors on the List
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:30 AM 12/4/95, Brian Davis wrote: >I feel slighted. No one accused me of lacking principles because I >haven't quit my job with the Justice Department based on its, and the >Administration's, position. Speaking for myself, I simply assumed you were a prosecutor handling the "legitimate" cases, as the OJ prosecutors were (granted, different types of cases). Despite my libertarian leanings, I suppose many or even most prosecutions actually involve real crimes of fraud, theft, embezzlement, etc., at least based on what I read of pending court cases. Though there are probably a lot of "crimes" prosecuted that I don't think of as real crimes. A college friend of mine is married to a woman who's a prosecutor in Brooklyn, and one of her cases involved prosecuting some poor shlub who was caught committing the dastardly crime of _smuggling his own money_ out of the country! (Tens of thousands of dollars, not the millions that a drug case would involve, not that it matters to me, but it might to some.) My point? I did not insult her when she mentioned this, just said something like "Well, I don't view it as a crime." She of course understood, as her husband is a libertarian like me. (I could never be a prosecutor, or even a successful defense attorney, as I would feel it necessary to decide on each case whether prosecution/defense is justified.) I suppose I don't impute evil to very many people at all. I view some _institutions_ as counterproductive and at odds with the principles of free association and non-agression that this country was founded on, and it is the _institutions_ I think need changing. Fortunately, strong crypto is the right kind of tool at the right time. (I think my hero Tom Jefferson would really have gotten a kick out of this stuff, especially considering that he invented his own ciphers for private communication....not a lot of doubt what he'd have thought about a scheme for the government to have access to all business transactions, all conference calls, all private e-mail, and all international letters.) But I don't think of Dorothy Denning, for example, as an "evil" person, just as someone whose assessment of the tradeoffs, and whose political power of course (she having the ear of the leadership), is much different from mine. And I've met Stewart Baker, former chief counsel of the NSA (and past/present advocate of restrictions on strong crypto use), and he's quite knowledgeable and reasonable. (I hope readers will spare us the usual responses along the lines of "They say Hitler was very charming." Monsters can indeed be deceptively charming, but I don't think for a nanosecond that Stewart Baker, Louis Freeh, Dorothy Denning, or Jim Clark fit into this picture. My point is that reasonable people can have disagreements, even disagreements which they cannot compromise about, without any requirement that one or the other be "evil.") Getting back to Baker, it is clear we disagree. He may even think me irresponsible for advocating "anarcho-capitalist" views (*), but we were able to communicate civilly at the last CFP and even shared a panel. I think he understands my libertarian positions, and I think I understand his concerns. As it happens, I'm just not convinced that stopping some number of crimes is sufficient reward for outlawing privacy. Mounting cameras in all homes and hotel rooms would undeniably stop some number of crimes, or allow the perps to be caught and convicted, but it is too high a price to pay by orders of magnitude. (* I call my position "crypto anarchy," for reasons I've explained, but it is actually the fairly well-respected position of laissez-fair capitalism, aka anarcho-capitalism, aka freedom. Since it is instantiated on the Net, perhaps a better name would be "arachno-capitalism," not to be confused with the "narco-capitalism" practiced, it is said, by the CIA and various dictators.) >Nevertheless, I won't think less of Jeff if he doesn't quit. He appears >to be fighting what most here believe is the good fight. Refusing to >take his ball and go home does not mean, to me, that he lacks >principles. Perhaps it means that he thinks he can do more from within. > >Gee, and Tim May didn't get a new ISP when his current PC-ISP canceled >his Usenet access because of his protected speech and then gave it back >only if he included a disclaimer on his messages. Fire away, Cypherpunks!!! Indeed, we all make compromises. The calls for Jeff to quit Netscape are especially pointless, I think. First, he can do more for "our" cause than if he quits and his voice is no longer heard. Second, it's far too early to know how things are going and whether Netscape will in fact become the "munitions supplier" to the Surveillance State. Third, the element of hypocrisy. I didn't see a single one of our AT&T list members resign from AT&T over the Clipper flap. This is why I'm concerned about the Netscape position, and why I'm probing for details and explanations, but it is also why I'm trying the best I can not to be rude or insulting to Jeff Weinstein. If we drive him off the list with insults and cheap shots, it is quite possible that our views will no longer have any impact within Netscape (or other companies, for that matter) and that we'll just be dismissed as a bunch of crazies. Your mileage may vary. --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: info?
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 3 Dec 95 at 22:28, j.miranda3(a)genie.com wrote: > Can you send me information about your organization? > > --Joseph Miranda Sure, Joe! We were founded several thousand years ago, have had chapters in virtually all societies and cultures beyond the truly primitive ones. Some of our members founded the United States of America some time back -- maybe you've heard of it? We have initiation rites that often involve learning arcane and complex formulae from thick books, we have secret handshakes, decoder rings, and we often like to roast our victims over a slow fire. There's hardly anything that goes on in the world that our members don't affect, and still, the society at large doesn't really know we're here. If you're looking for a secret cabal well, gee, you've come to the right place! If you'd like an interesting and colorful brochure containing all the details and benefits of membership, just pick up the phone, call your mother, and ask for one! Thank you for inquiring about the International Gourmet Cooking Society! Salsa Sam

2 1

Re: Jim Clark, "Mr. Bubble"
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Dan Weinstein: >You have just proven your self to be a hypocrite. If you expect of >others more than you expect of your self, you need to reevaluate your >own life. If you are not willing to risk your life, fortune, and >reputation on your beliefs, how can you expect Mr. Clark or anyone >else to do the same. And you've just proven yourself to be "a little bit slow"; hypocrites, at least, can change their ways. This discussion is about the effects that Jim Clark, someone who is assessed as a billionaire and who heads a Wall St.-bedazzling multibillion-dollar corporation, can have on USG crypto policy; yet you would get into a tawdry comparison of "personal failings." I will continue not to trumpet the specifics of any crypto-promoting illegalities which I may or may not have engaged in, and I'll thank you to do the same. Hieronymous >"I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite - >the unconditional will to say No, where it is dangerous to say >No. > Friedrich Nietzsche BU was right: there's gotta be a self-help book called something like "Learning to Say YES!" that would provide you with a more appropriate .sig. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQBVAwUBMMJeX73g0mNE55u1AQEiqAH+IXva02/4rIoegkaQEUzF9X/2nTQhGKFm TEO6RjrN1vuegeUtBs3oNfvs4bq6Rxrnras+9EJfVCaxZam51dWDRQ== =pRWz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Java Cup International -- $1,000,000 in prizes
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Wouldn't it be fun to win an UltraSPARC for writing some free code to secure Java applications? The catch is: No entries can use encryption! I wonder how they expect electronic commerce, security, or micropayment systems without encryption. See the Official Rules. -- John] Sun Microsystems has announced the JAVA Cup International, a contest to promote the creation and public availability of small, platform-independent applications called JAVA applets. Software developers will compete to develop the most innovative and creative applets. The JAVA Cup International contest begins immediately and ends March 31, 1996. Who's Eligible: Developer community including business, academic, and individual programmers worldwide. Prizes: Prizes will total $1,000,000 in Sun equipment (U.S. list) distributed among winners. One grand prize and three prizes per category (two individual prizes and one team prize). The first 1,000 to submit entries will receive a Java Coffee Cup & T-Shirt. Categories: Productivity Tools, Internet/Web Agents, Educational, Developer Tools, Entertainment and Games, Unlimited. Judging Criteria: Best Graphics, System Friendliness, Clean Code, Security, Reliability, Interactivity, Innovation. Check out http://javacontest.sun.com for complete details.

1 0

Re: Info on Netscape's key escrow position
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:01 PM 12/1/95 -0800, Jeff Weinstein wrote: > > I think the gist > of it is that if governments require key escrow, we will have to do it > in order to sell our products with encryption into those countries. Jim Clark wrote: >> But if we do not come up with a solution to this problem that is >> acceptable to each government, we will not be able to export our products, >> except with a short key length (e.g. 40 bit keys), and that will not be >> acceptable to corporate customers in other countries. I read it as saying: "Let us help the government invade the privacy of our customers, so that the government will do us some favors in export licensing", rather than "Well if they stick it to us at gunpoint, we will submit." I would appreciate some further "clarification". --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Re: GAK Flap Happening at a Good Time--Journalists Read!
by carolann＠censored.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have been to Congress. I have lobbied them personally. Oct 2nd & 3rd was when. It wasn't easy. I also spent time in the Press Galleries. That was even harder. I will be there next October, and will be credentialed for all four of the different galleries. Mr. Jeff get real. You company is now on the record for GAK. It hadn't until then. But now you are. Now all the lower levels can decry what Mr. Clark said, but the damage is already done. And....if you're not, Mr. Jeff, this being the electronic age and all, why not get Mr. Clark to clarify it, muddy it, or downright repudiate it as a misquote or something. I'd love to see that. So would a lot of others. But somehow I don't think that is gonna happen. Love Always, Carol Anne ps censored.org is now running ftp at 206.42.112.96 on an intermittent basis using serveu1.1 >Black Unicorn wrote: >> >> On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Jeff Weinstein wrote: -- 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

Apachessl (was your mail)
by Jeff Hupp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 3 Dec 95 at 11:41, Laszlo Vecsey wrote: : > > Competing with Netscape is obviously something that's easier said than : > > done. But we ought to consider the strategic importance of having robust, : > : > I hate to repeat myself, but sometimes people don't listen. : > http://www.c2.org/apachessl/ : : I don't see how you can charge for a commercial versions of ApacheSSL. : Isn't it protected by the GNU license agreement? Or is the idea that by : registering ApacheSSL you still get the software for free but you are : required to pay for support. Go read the GNU license. Nothing prevents selling the programs, nothing prevents selling modifications of the programs. The major restraint is that you have to provide source. Now, from what I read of the page, that is being done. Personally, I would prefer to see the whole thing given away, and if I had done it, it would be. But he (or his contractors / employees ) did the work that went into modifying it, and if he want's to sell that work he bloody well can. -- JHupp(a)gensys.com |For PGP Public Key: http://gensys.com |finger jhupp(a)gensys.com Does history recorde any case in which the majority was right?

2 1

.SIG disclaimer, clarification
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:55 AM 12/4/95, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 1:30 AM 12/4/95, Brian Davis wrote: >>Gee, and Tim May didn't get a new ISP when his current PC-ISP canceled >>his Usenet access because of his protected speech and then gave it back >>only if he included a disclaimer on his messages. Fire away, Cypherpunks!!! > >Indeed, we all make compromises. >From Jay Campbell's post on this, I more carefully reread Brian's comment. Without going into this in detail, which there is not enough time or patience for anyone to read, I'll make a few clarifications. 1. I have not gotten a new ISP anytime recently. 2. I added a disclaimer to my .sig partly to lessen any future misunderstandings about whether I was speaking for "tcmay(a)foobar.com" or speaking for "foobar.com". And partly I added it--as should be clear from "or the views of my government" part--as an ironic tweak. 3. The case involved a Usenet rant I wrote some time back in which my "Organization:" field remained set at the default provided by the ISP (complete with phone number for getting an account, as is common with Netcom, AOL, Pipeline, etc.). People complained to the owner of "foobar.com" claiming that his company could be sued, blah blah, for the views I expressed. (I think this is absurd, of course, for so many reasons I cannot begin to list them here.) (I don't believe the nature of my rant is germane to the issues involved. It was posted to a group filled with similar, or worse, rants, and was not inappropriate to the subject of the newsgroup. And explaining the post in context, including preceeding and following posts, and other posts circulating at the same time, would take far too much time while accomplishing nothing productive. Was it extreme? Maybe. Events had pissed me off, so I posted to a rant group. Unfortunately, some on the Usenet want only their own rants heard.) 4. The owner of foobar.com abruptly turned-off my ability to access his news machine and sent me an angry note demanding that I cancel my article, post an apology, and make it clear in future posts that I was not with his company (by changing the default Organization: field he had automatically set!). He informed me that failure to promptly indicate my acceptance of his conditions would result in my account being cancelled. 5. Being that I like the services at foobar.com, and being that it was a minor matter to meet his conditions, I did so. My access to Usenet was turned back on. This is what I meant by my statement "we all make compromises." 6. I am very happy with "got.net," and Jay Campbell, one of the sysops of got.net, was not the person involved above. 7. This issue presumably came to Brian's attention through the Cyberia list, where someone (Chris Mohr) had commented on .sig disclaimers in general and mine in particular. So I outlined the story, in even less detail than I have here, as an interesting data point on how pressure can be applied to stifle unpopular opinions. (Understand that I am opposed to any laws which would force a sysop to keep a customer he no longer wishes to have. My point is more sociological. In particular, if a service or ISP gets the "reputation" for cancelling accounts because of pressures applied, then those who want certain views suppressed will know they can "roll" the ISP. Netcom, to their credit, understood this early on and adopted a policy of never cancelling accounts for the content of things said (spamming, fraud, chain letters, etc. being well-described exceptions in their "Terms and Conditions") Netcom has several "despicable" posters who use the system to spread Jew-hating, white-hating, gay-hating, men-hating, and other such *-hating views, and even has Holocaust Deniers and the White Aryan Resistance as account-holders. Netcom refuses to give in to those who want these accounts cancelled. A lesson for all ISPs, and for remailers, too.) --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Info on Netscape's key escrow position
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jsw(a)netscape.com" "Jeff Weinstein" 2-DEC-1995 19:58:15.80 E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > I believe that the central question at hand is whether Netscape will > incorporate mandatory GAK into any of its products if you have an economic > (governmental purchase) rather than physical (governmental threat of violence) > reason to do so. I would hope that the upcoming statement will clarify this > position, and in the proper direction. If the government wants to purchase software for its own use that implements key escrow, why it that bad? The whole point of our anti-GAK position is that government mandated key escrow is bad. If individuals, companies, or government agencies want to escrow their own keys, with the escrow agents of their own choosing, I have not problem. Its only when the government make the escrow and the agent mandatory that I've got a problem. -------------------- I apologize for my lack of clarity. I would agree with you on voluntary escrow. My meaning in "governmental purchase" is that governments may use tactics such as directing purchases to companies that cooperate with their agenda. In other words, instead of properly spending the taxpayers' money on the best browser, server, etcetera available, they may exclude programs produced by a company not incorporating mandatory GAK. -------------------- I don't believe that Netscape will ship a product that mandates GAK unless it was required by law to do so. As long as it is legal to sell non-escrowed crypto products in this country or elsewhere, I think we will keep doing it, because that is what our customers want. -------------------- I am glad that your information leads you to this belief. However, I would still prefer that the official company statement include a clear section on this matter. (I would also, of course, prefer that this section be clearly against GAK; Jim Clark's claim that there are any circumstances under which a private citizen's communications should be tapped gives me cause to doubt.) -Allen

1 0