December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: GAK, Netscape, CyberDog, and you.
by Ed Carp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Fri, 1 Dec 1995 11:58:26 -0500 > To: semper.fi(a)solutions.apple.com > From: rah(a)shipwright.com (Robert Hettinga) > Subject: GAK, Netscape, CyberDog, and you. > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, mcip(a)deepeddy.com, www-buyinfo(a)allegra.att.com, > ecm(a)ai.mit.edu, bsdc(a)ai.mit.edu > I hear that with CyberDog, building a secure Netscape-compatible browser in > OpenDoc is now pretty simple. That adding economically useful -- and Where can one get more information on CyberDog?

1 0

No Subject
by David Downey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Re: Info on Netscape's key escrow position
by blancw＠accessone.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From Hal Finney: [in regard to Jim Clark "preaching acquiescence"]: Where is the recognition that the right to tap communications is not granted by God but an accident of technology, one which can be taken away by technological progress as easily as it was granted? .............................................................. I agree with Hal's comments. If Netscape acquiesced to the use of GAK, it would be very easy for cypherpunks and others to switch browsers; they could re-direct interest to Mosaic or even create their own. Netscape is in a prominent position, however, in the net community, which is looking to prevent government control of their electronic communication. The NSA and other government agencies are looking for excuses to give their decisions the appearance of legitimacy. Any perceived weakness on the part of the commercial key players in cyberspace can be perceived as conducive towards the implementation of mandatory security plans, in disregard of the actual desires of internet users. It appears that Netscape is stuck between a rock and a hard place: . if they adamantly resist GAK, they're in trouble with "the Law" . if they appear agreeable to complying with future legal mandates, they're in trouble in with their customers in cyberspace. Losing the fight intellectually precedes losing it in fact. This is more likely to result when the distinction between government "authority" vs citizen "rights" is obscured from the general consciousness (as in: whose business is it, anyway?). Anyone who provides a communication service which can be made accessible to "the Law" becomes by default a representative of the issue, which to me amounts to what someone want to promote in the U.S. (or the world) in terms of ideals; in terms of a way of life. It would promote an atmosphere of intellectual integrity to have explicitly definite statements about the objections to GAK, but barring that it is useful to know that these representatives appreciate why the difference is important. . is it because money is being lost? . because privacy is at stake? . because the ideal of self-determination is being muddled, along with . an understanding of where the concept of "individual unit citizens" stands in relation to concepts of "government authority"? . because of the consequences of that obfuscation? The caution with which this GAK business is being dealt with I think is symptomatic of an underlying problem, which is of not having a sense of freedom to stand up to the Dark Side. .. Blanc

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

I personally believe that this topic does not deserve the heat that it has generated on this list. This opinion could change. I'll have a much better idea Tuesday evening when I've had a chance to hear the latest from NIST on GAK for export. Much of the complaining in September was that vendors didn't want to build two versions, one domestic and one for "export" Netscape is currently doing at least two, and probably closer to ten if you count Windows 16, 32, Mac, Motif, etc. tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) writes: > Netscape, being the dominant browser company, and Microsoft, being the > dominant OS company, are in special positions to "build in Big Brother." > I'm not claiming they are, just that they are clearly in a position to > make it technologically more feasible to make non-GAK illegal. They both > need to carefully think about the role that's been "given" to them > (whether by fortune, hard work, or being in the right place at the right > time) and do what's right. Except for Louis Freeh and Dorrthy Denning, I haven't heard real people support GAK domestically, although Geoff Grevildinger's pitch at the Sept NIST meeting was 99 & 44/100% domestic. I'll be listening pretty carefully this Tuesday. I think we need to save out fury for real statements about making non-GAK illegal for domestic use. If this starts to condense out of the Ether, I expect that the civil liberties lobbies will get real loud. the ACLU and VTW were both vocal at the September meeting, and EPIC was there, along with folks like Proffessor Hoffman of GW. > And what Netscape agrees to put in future releases of its browsers or its > servers could have dramatic effects on the whole climate. I have no problem with Netscape having a GAK-ified browser in addition to a real one. At least as long as the GAK'd version is clearly identified -- a logo saying "big brother inside" covering 25% of the screen should do it for me. > And if export laws demand GAK in exported products, Netscape should "do > the right thing" and have two versions. It may add to their costs a > little, but it's better than building in the machinery for a GAK law to > later be passed. Netscape is currently doing two (or ten) version. This simple fact seems to have been lost by most of the posters in the past few days. If the issue is just that people don't like the idea that the free, downloadable is GAK'd and that they have to pay $50 for a browser with strong crypto, please take your whining off list. Or find one you like (Netmanage's is too buggy for me, but Mosaic version 2 is quite usable, as is Microsoft's, IMHO) > (Explain something to me. I have never, ever understood why it is a > concern of the U.S. government that we help build in GAK for foreign > governments, that we make sure that products intended for export to > France or Syria have GAK that allows those governments to read the > traffic of their citizens. And if the concern is that exported versions > of software must be readable to the _United States_, then this is a > non-starter in terms of sales in many or even most foreign countries! I'm > sure France will welcome with open arms a version of Netscape that allows > the NSA to read the traffic of French citizens. Oh, by the way, what > legal jurisdictions will be involved in obtaining the escrowed keys of > foreigners? The answers are both clear and murky, if you catch my drift.) The "criteria" (see my http://www.isse.gmu.edu/~pfarrell/nistmeeting.html page) clearly say that approved systems can _not_ interoperate with unapproved systems. This means that exportable systems can not interoperate with, say, PGP. There was talk about having multinational treaties so the French, Iranian, and other "friends" could access the GAK's messages, but that was recognized as being many years out. Diplomacy is slow. It was quite clear from multinational vendors that they thought that non-US corporations would _absolutely not_ accept GAK in the US. The main effect of this stupid export stuff is to drive crypto development offshore. > If the U.S. insists on GAK _within the U.S._, as many of us fear is the > long-term danger, then all bets are off anyway. But I would hope that > Netscape does nothing to make it _easier_ to make this the case! 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. > A viable thing for Netscape to do is to announce forthrightly that it will > separate the issue of export from what it sells in the U.S., that there > will be NO GAK included in any U.S.-sold packages. The quest for an "all > world" version, freely exportable, should not take precedence over the > civil liberties issues. And I predict that any slight losses in market > share or slight increases in product cost will be _less_ than the effects > Netscape will see if their product comes to be associated with "Big > Brother Inside." I've been developing software too long to accept that the increases in product support costs will be "slight". But I agree that Netscape should _continue_ to have three separate versions, one for domestic use, a second one for export from the US, and the third with Fortessa for sale to Govie agancies that want it. They probably need to add a fourth version, a strong foreign version developed offshore. Tim's suggestion of a formal statement that separates domestic product from export, and clearly leaves GAK out of US products, is a very good one. It is close to what Netscape is doing now, it is completely consistant with current and publically announced policies, and it would let this list return to discussions that are relevant to cryptography. 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>

2 1

Pegasus Mail PGP Extensions?
by Adam Hupp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know if there are any PGP extensions for WinPMail, and where to get them? -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6 mQBtAzCNppQAAAEDALhWZl7IuGZ9zZT5bACo0b/1L0Nv0C72vKHIO3IHh+cwpHHa 2Ozb9aeO0UvXGwkkZIYgUm0EvmzKh7yb1GTLvBp5kXpR3I9w+Yj4LGlBDERpUWw6 x4ED49pwDnz1Hl5FBQAFEbQYYXNoIDxhaHVwcEBwcmltZW5ldC5jb20+ =PtJK -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Re: Info on Netscape's key escrow position
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I say "Hear, Hear!" to Hal Finney's message about why we should be mad at Netscape and Jim Clark. (Although I still have a bit of hope that Netscape and Clark will see the importance of not simply giving up.) --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

apachessl info
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "James A. Donald" <jamesd(a)echeque.com> wrote: >>At 11:32 PM 12/2/95 -0800, sameer wrote: >> I hate to repeat myself, but sometimes people don't listen. >>http://www.c2.org/apachessl/ >This Web page fails to explain what Apache-SSL actually is, what it is good >for, >and why people should use it. What I missed was the how-to on getting a certified key. Wasn't there a way of doing that through e-world (Apple's on-line service) for free? Wilhelm Busch -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMMI8XYiUi5SQtQ3tAQFplQf/Ua4/xmkbLRkDCqK1ws6HkhG4IyzFIz0r ESxaEXme6Ev9jTIzQtR+Stabi31H1hbMwkOR/MKSxx9vhuCpzX4PrKtjaMpugXMy nJ6voHmveZd4gErQJ6TM9X42TroaypDa/lL6Bc9UGAGoMAl37tst/jzL3l11iRfO OLKrsL9rDRtwu50sdulqEhrbphuTZriPuReDR5ZluAwZzsDcu8Upor1DIP9W+bVu zYTziaFmHAigP/dJOyi6x/Zd6aDoIl2U55YfQ+Pa3RUyarDVIjcnR/D6N8NeB7Cr XSZo78T9mG4JygZItY86z9Ct5vL1o1MzSNcm3KmuUwuyYOJcGUlddg== =Jry0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQEPAzC9XzIAAAEIAMJ9b1kiyvrhoa5OGf7G1hSt6yWmzX7napWo5qRAh+xUE+Ue ftxUmGE1p/lFoUJIRKhH2I0yktcp3Wirmm61rIfJ5S0s9BnE3W+Uk8B1jxim2JvZ ezOPn0so+dUJP4tvtzDQZDCk5VGTsJkMAvhxahripQKpkWC5qL9nM9cvKa2ZnFjT 8NRaaAx1eMST/k4ntc431jFXNgnBDrxNBb8RNMb7b7jtFGOFN8Y3Mj5TmprXps2V ydtL57Z85MKfFjkAMeMtugqieJBWEsqA3C1/wKhB9cKb1Rdu/97VpZ0v+FQe9Y1k qwsQ78chNzBpfHjxSSuo8T4NV0AZiJSLlJC1De0AEQEAAbQNV2lsaGVsbSBCdXNj aA== =/fpw -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

2 1

Re: Netscape gives in to key escrow
by Jay Campbell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>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!!! Get your facts straight before spewing this nonsense to the masses. There's not an ounce of reality reflected anywhere in that whole sentence. -- Jay Campbell edge(a)got.net - Operations Manager -=-=-=-=-=-=- Sense Networking, Santa Cruz Node Jay(a)Campbell.net got.net? PGP MIT KeyID 0xACAE1A89 "On the Information Superhighway, I'm the guy behind you in this morning's traffic jam leaning on his horn."

1 0

Re: Globally legal Netscape
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Fred Cohen wrote: > Law enforcement is almost universally used as an excuse to > collect information on individuals in the name of helping society, > but this power is easily abused. In addition to Fred's good examples of abuse of information, I'd like to add the use of census data to arrest Japanese-Americans during World War 2 - not only was the data collected under great promises that citizens could trust the government, and that it would only be accessible for lawful purposes, it was used to attack people who weren't doing anything illegal or wrong when it was collected. Everything you say on the nets sticks around, and if the government has master keys, then even what you said in private sticks around. It's not illegal to say "[expletive deleted]" in private mail today, and won't be even after Exon-II passes, but it _may_ be kept around so they'll know whose mail to get law enforcement access to to enforce the Verbal Morality Act of 2001. At 04:26 PM 12/3/95 -0600, rthomas(a)pamd.cig.mot.com (Robert Owen Thomas) wrote: >look, this is just a *bit* extreme. having been one of those folks sworn >to uphold the Constitution, I can tell all of you that there is no master >plan to rid the American people of their rights and freedom. Remember the fundamental job of any bureaucracy - self-preservation and growth, by whatever means necessary. No need for any master plan or conspiracy. Are there herds of opportunists interested in taking political advantage of anything that comes their way? You bet. Listen to Louis Freeh talk about the need to be able to eavesdrop on anybody they want to be able to catch narco-terrorist child pornographers, and think about whether you want the FBI able to tap your email - especially if you occasionally send email to people whose chronological age you don't know using language that Senator Exon might disapprove of. Reminds me a lot of Harry Anslinger talking state governments into banning Evil Marihuana in the waning days of Prohibition. >o Robert Owen Thomas: Corvette pilot. Cymro ydw i. User scratching post. o ^^^^^^^^^^^ Between the anti-encryption cops and the English-Only right-wingers, you may not be able to say that much longer - Welsh isn't quite as heavily encrypted as, say, Navajo, but it's bound to violate some law soon enough :-) #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0663 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281 # Anybody notice that Microsoft's Wide Open Road ad has barbed-wire fences # on both sides of the road?

1 0

more examples of privacy invasion as a prelude to oppresion desired
by fc＠all.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think it would be a very good idea to collect a great deal more data in support of the correlation between the reduction in privacy and the removal of other rights - eventually resulting in bad things - throughout history. I would be happy to collect as much data as possible on this from the cypherpunks (and others) and to post the information in a more complete form when the examples start to slow down. The more facts and citations you can provide, the better it will be for the purposes of making this point clear, accurate, and hard to dispute. -> See: Info-Sec Heaven at URL http://all.net/ Management Analytics - 216-686-0090 - PO Box 1480, Hudson, OH 44236

1 0