December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: NIST GAK export meeting, short version
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:11 AM 12/6/95 -0400, pfarrell(a)netcom.com wrote: >They claimed it was needed so that they can serve a court order >that is SECRET. .... >The main area that they claimed was for FISA orders. Maybe this is just an artifact of Pat's wording, but this sounds like there may be classified court orders other than FISA? > Plus, since you have to be a US citizen to get a clearence, > how can there be approved foreign escrow agents? By deals with the foreign governments, presumably reciprocal. The US would allow export of software using the escrow keys for Banque du Commerce et Credit Internationale - Paris, if the bank and the French spooks signed an agreement for escrow access, and in return the US would probably agree to give the French access to some US-escrowed keys (with proper requests, of course.) >And the usual, why in hell would a competent spy use >crypto escrowed in the US? Competent spies appear to be a surprisingly small fraction of even government-employed espionage personnel, or maybe long-term espionage is just inherently difficult the Soviet Empire, Nazi Germany, and WWII Britain had all identified most of the spy rings operating against them. Philip Agee's article on how to identify the CIA agents in a US embassy may have surprised the CIA, but wouldn't have given any significant new information to the KGB. (They might have been surprised he'd _say_ it...) And amateurs and newcomers to the business aren't always that good. Also, maybe a spy would be using GAKed crypto to avoid attracting attention. Much of espionage, especially emerging economic espionage, primarily uses open-source information; there's nothing too secret about sending the latest SAIC want-ads from EE Times back home, but the CIA may learn what targets you're watching by watching enough of your traffic to guess at your filtering criteria. And sometimes you're just stuck on the Beltway and have to use your car phone to say you'll be a bit late dropping off the secret plans. #-- # 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

Re: Secret Clearance (was: re: NIST GAK export meeting, sv)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:00 PM 12/5/95 -0500, Pete Loshin <pete(a)loshin.com> wrote: >The point is, if you want to keep your organization's systems secure, >you need some mechanism to do so. Security clearance is one way; >banks and other financial institutions do other things (like finger prints, >background checks, etc.) ... >My big question is, do any of the companies providing Internet services, >or Internet software, or digital commerce services/software, employ >any of these security mechanisms on their employees? Few, if any, other than companies already in the military business; secret clearances are _expensive_, usually take a long time to get, and the military only gives them to people who need them. Normally, to get clearances for your employees, you need to have a security bureaucracy to also get clearance for handling classified material in your building, though perhaps they'd make other arrangements so the cleared escrow agent could take the master keys down to the local FBI office to unlock somebody's correspondence. Commercial companies are more likely to use bonding services to insure themselves against employee theft, though they also do things like talking to previous employers, and for sensitive positions some companies check criminal records. Many companies will run a TRW-or-equivalent credit check on applicants to see if there are major outstanding problems (though somehow the Mafia seldom reports bad gambling debts to TRW :-), and some companies pretend they're doing drug tests to check for people with expensive habits. #-- # 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?

2 1

Re: News on Congressional Debate on Exon
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The following are from NandO.net, CDT, and EFF respectively. Sorry about the lack of editing, but I'm having editor problems. I don't know what the "fused" bill looks like. The White one can be gotten around through tactics such as daemons deleting "adults only" signifiers when passing through one's (or a virally-infected) machine, or via the offshore (unfiltered) server idea. Otherwise, everything that Congress doesn't like may wind up being accessible only via identification. If it's more like the Exon & Hyde one, then we've got real problems. That one is broad enough to be probably tossed out by the courts (or by Clinton if he ever shows the guts). -Allen __________________________________________________________________________ (c) 1995 Copyright Nando.net (c) 1995 Associated Press WASHINGTON (Dec 6, 1995 - 16:57 EST) -- House lawmakers agreed Wednesday on a plan that would make it illegal for a company to knowingly transmit sexually explicit and other "indecent" material to minors over computers. The agreement makes it all but certain that if legislation overhauling the nation's telecommunications laws is enacted, it will contain some of the most sweeping anti-smut provisions ever imposed on computer communications. The plan is part of negotiations on a larger telecommunications bill and settles differences among House members who were deeply divided over how to best limit children's exposure to smut carried on computer services, including the global network, Internet. The plan not only toughens an anti-smut provision contained in a a House telecommunications bill, but brings it in line with a provision in the Senate's telecommunications bill. "We're on the road to an agreement that most can agree to," said Sen. J. James Exon, D-Neb., author of Senate's anti-smut provision, which like the House plan also outlaws the transmission of indecent material to minors. House and Senate lawmakers serving on a committee to reconcile House- and Senate-passed telecommunications bills met for the second time in six weeks on Wednesday. "I'm determined to finish this bill," said Sen. Larry Pressler, R-S.D., architect of the Senate's telecommunications measure and chairman of the conference committee. Supporters are scrambling to bring a final bill to each chamber for a vote by Dec. 15. Rep. Thomas Bliley, R-Va., the primary author of the House bill, said the conference could be completed "within days." While the panel ended up reconciling nearly three dozen largely non-controversial provisions contained in both bills, it has yet to resolve differences on the most contentious issues -- the conditions by which Bell companies may enter the long-distance business and media ownership. A tentative agreement on another contentious issue -- cable deregulation -- would lift existing price regulations on all but the smallest cable TV systems in at least three years. Small systems would be deregulated upon enactment. The House's anti-smut plan -- a combination of dueling proposals from Rep. Rick White, R-Wash., and Henry Hyde, R-Ill., would prohibit content providers on a computer service from "knowingly sending or directly sending" sexually explicit material to anyone 18 years old and younger. Companies that provide access to computer networks, like America Online and CompuServe, would not be liable under the provision, White said. The Department of Justice would enforce the provision, which also carries criminal penalties of up to two years in jail and $100,000 in fines. Businesses and civil liberties groups opposed Hyde's plan to toughen the House's anti-smut provision by making it illegal for a content provider to knowingly transmit indecent materials. Instead, they had rallied behind a proposal from White, whose district includes the headquarters of Microsoft, that among other things, would have prohibited only the transmission of materials "harmful to minors" and would not have outlawed indecent transmissions. The Center for Democracy and Technology Policy, one of the main groups pushing for weaker anti-smut provisions, had no immediate comment on the House plan. But Mike Russell, a spokesman for the Christian Coalition, which backed Hyde's tougher standard, said: "It is clearly going in our direction. We were holding out for tougher language and it appears we're going to get it." Indecent speech, unlike obscenity, is protected under the First Amendment. Though the House plan doesn't yet specifically define "indecent," the standard legal and regulatory definition says it is material that describes in terms patently offensive, as measured by contemporary community standard, sexual or excretory activities or organ. Transmission of obscene materials whether by print, broadcast, cable or computers is illegal. Obscenity is something that, measured by community standards, lacks, among other things serious artistic, political or scientific or social merit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ****** ******** ************** ******** ********* ************** ** ** ** *** POLICY POST ** ** ** *** ** ** ** *** December 4, 1995 ** ** ** *** Number 31 ******** ********* *** ****** ******** *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------ A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CDT POLICY POST Number 31 December 4, 1995 CONTENTS: (1) House Conferees to Vote Wednesday on Fate of Net (2) How To Subscribe To The CDT Policy Post Distribution List (3) About CDT, Contacting Us This document may be re-distributed freely provided it remains in its entirety. Excerpts may be re-posted by permission (editor(a)cdt.org) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - (1) HOUSE CONFEREES TO VOTE WEDNESDAY ON FATE OF THE NET On Wednesday December 6, members of the House conference committee will vote on how to deal with the controversial "cyberporn" issue. The full House/Senate conference committee will consider the issue within the next two weeks. After months of contentious debate, the conferees must now choose between two proposals: one proposal sponsored by Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL) and an alternative proposed by Rep. Rick White (R-WA). The Hyde proposal would severely restrict freedom of speech on the Internet, and grant the Federal Communications Commission new authority to regulate online content. The White proposal relies on parents, not federal bureaucrats, to determine what material is and is not appropriate for themselves and their children, though it also imposes new criminal penalties for individuals who transmit material that is "harmful to minors". The outcome of this decision will have tremendous implications on the future of freedom of expression and the development of interactive media as a whole. If the Hyde proposal prevails, the Internet as we know it will never be the same. CDT firmly believes that no new laws in this area are necessary. Current law is already working to punish online stalkers and prosecute the distribution of obscene material online. However, choosing nothing is not an option available to the Conference Committee. Given the options before the committee, CDT believes that the effort of Congressman White should be commended. He has tried to find a resolution to this issue which preserves freedom of speech and relies on user empowerment over government control of online content. Rep. White's proposal represents the only option on the table which will not destroy the Internet and the future of interactive communications technologies. Although this is a difficult choice for the Net.Community, White must prevail at this stage. The Hyde proposal, which is being pushed heavily by the Christian Coalition, would severely restrict freedom of speech and the democratic potential of the Internet and other interactive media. It fails to recognize the global, decentralized nature of interactive media and its tremendous ability for user control. The proposal would be wholly ineffective at accomplishing its stated objective of protecting children from objectionable material, while destroying the Internet in the process. If the conferees choose Hyde's approach over White, the Federal Communications Commission will, for the first time ever, have the authority to regulate online content and the underlying technologies of the net itself. In addition, the First Amendment and the free flow of information online will be chilled by an overly broad "indecency" standard. Online service providers will be forced to monitor all traffic to ensure that no "indecent" material is transmitted (creating a nightmare for freedom of speech and privacy), or shut down some service all together for fear of expensive law suits or prison sentences. And although all these provisions can be challenged in court, recent history with the so-called "dial-a-porn" and indecency an cable channels (Alliance for Community Media vs. FCC) suggest that such challenges can take years to resolve, and even then with no guarantee of success. Representative White's approach seeks to protect cyberspace from intrusion by the federal government, and to empower parents to make decisions about what is and is not appropriate for themselves and for their children. While the proposal does contain new criminal provisions, including restrictions on the display of material that is "harmful to minors", it also creates a defense to prosecution for those who take good faith, reasonable efforts to label content and enable others to block it using user control technologies. The fate of the Net, and the future of freedom of speech and the democratic potential of interactive media, now rests in the hands of the conference committee members. OVERVIEW OF THE HYDE AND WHITE PROPOSALS I. THE HYDE PROPOSAL Representative Hyde is pushing an unconstitutional and overly regulatory proposal which would criminalize the transmission and display of "indecent material" (a broad classification which includes everything from the so-called '7 dirty words' to classic works of fiction such as The Catcher In the Rye and Ulysses), hold carriers liable for material created by their subscribers, and grant the Federal Government broad new authority over online content and the underlying technologies of the Internet. The Hyde proposal has been endorsed by the Christian Coalition and other members of the "religious-right". Among other things, the Hyde proposal would: 1. Create $100,000 fines and 2 year jail terms for anyone who makes or makes available any indecent material to a minor (Sec 402 (d)). 2. Grant the FCC broad authority over on line speech and over online technology (Sec (e)(1)) 3. Criminalize the transmission or display of indecent material to anyone under 18 years of age (Amendment to 18 USC 1465), 4. Not pre-empt state from passing even more restrictive, or even inconsistent, regulations. See CDT Policy Post No. 30 (December 1, 1995) for a detailed description of the Hyde proposal. For more information, including the text of the Hyde proposal and other relevant documents, visit CDT's net-censorship issues page (http://www.cdt.org/cda.html) II. THE WHITE PROPOSAL The proposal offered by Representative White, an original co-sponsor of the Cox/Wyden/White "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment" Amendment, is based on the user empowerment aspects of the original Cox/Wyden/White amendment. The White proposal substitutes the narrower "harmful to minors" standard for "indecency", and prohibits the FCC from imposing content regulations on online speech and from meddling in the underlying technologies of the Internet. While the White proposal does prohibit the "display" of material that is harmful to minors online, it creates a defense for those who take good faith, reasonable steps, to labile content and enable users to block or objectionable material using user control technologies (such as SurfWatch, the Parental Control features of AOL or Prodigy, or the PICS standards being developed by MIT and the World Wide Web Consortium). Briefly, the White proposal would: 1. Prohibit intentionally sending material that is harmful to minors directly to a to someone the sender knows is a minor, 2. Prohibit the display of material that is harmful to minors. However, content providers (including individual users) would be immune to prosecution if they have taken good faith, reasonable efforts to labile their content and enable it to be blocked or filtered by others (The MIT/World Wide Web consortium's PICS would be one example), 3. Prohibit the FCC from regulating content on or the technologies of the Internet and other interactive media, 4. Pre-empt inconsistent state laws, although this provision would not apply to individuals, non-profit providers of interactive computer services (such as BBS's or freenets), or non-profit organizations. 5. Clarify the House-passed Cox/Wyden/White to ensure that it does inadvertently create loopholes in ECPA or other privacy laws, 6. Protect online service providers from vicarious liability for transmitting their subscribers messages or for merely providing access to the Internet. III. BACKGROUND ON THE "HARMFUL TO MINORS" STANDARD White's proposal would prohibit sending material that is "harmful to minors" directly to a minor, as well as prohibit the display of material that is "harmful to minors" unless good faith, reasonable steps to labile and enable others to block access to such material. Harmful to minors is an intermediate standard between indecency and obscenity. It is essentially material that is obscene to a minor. It has been used in 48 state statutes and has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is defined as follows: "'harmful to minors' means any communications or material that is obscene or that: (a) taken as a whole, and with respect to minors, appeals to a prurient interest in nudity, sex, or excretion; (b) depicts, represents, or describes in a patently offensive way with respect to what is suitable for minors, ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, sado-masochistic acts or abuse; or lewd exhibition of the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or post-putertal female breasts; and (c) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. Materials that would be acceptable under this standard include the text of Catcher in the Rye, Ulysses, the use of the "7 dirty words" in context, and works of art which contain nudity. These same materials would be prohibited under an "indecency" standard. NEXT STEPS Once the House conferees vote on Wednesday, the full House/Senate conference committee will consider the issue. If the House conferees accept the White proposal, there will be additional opportunities to clarify and strengthen the proposal. However, if Hyde prevails, the entire battle will be lost. In addition to the "cyberporn issue", there are several other issues in the telecommunications bill which the conferees much resolve, including competition in the long distance market, cable rate regulation, and universal service, to name a few. The Republican leadership has reportedly instructed the conferees to finish all remaining issues this week and to have the final bill ready for the full House and Senate during the week of December 11. It is not clear whether this deadline can actually be met given the range of unresolved issues, but the House and Senate leadership appear committed to the timeline. CDT will keep you informed of developments on this issue as they occur. We will also post the text of the White proposal on our net-censorship web page as soon as a final copy is available (we expect it to be posted by Tuesday afternoon 12/5). For more information, visit CDT's net-censorship issues page: http://www.cdt.org/cda.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ --- (2) HOW TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE CDT POLICY POST LIST CDT Policy Posts, which is what you have just finished reading, are the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology. CDT Policy Posts are designed to keep you informed on developments in public policy issues affecting civil liberties online. SUBSCRIPTION INFORMAITON 1. SUBSCRIBING TO THE LIST To subscibe to the policy post distribution list, send mail to "Majordomo(a)cdt.org" with: subscribe policy-posts in the body of the message (leave the subject line blank) 2. UNSUBSCRIBING FROM THE LIST If you ever want to remove yourself from this mailing list, you can send mail to "Majordomo(a)cdt.org" with the following command in the body of your email message: unsubscribe policy-posts youremail(a)local.host (your name) (leave the subject line blank) You can also visit our subscription web page URL:http://www.cdt.org/join.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance constitutional civil liberties and democratic values in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info(a)cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1001 G Street NW * Suite 500 East * Washington, DC 20001 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Policy Post No. 31 12/4/95 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- _________________________________________________________________ Return to the Net-Censorship Issues Page Return to the CDT Home Page Below is an open letter to Internet users from Rep. Rick White (R-WA), co-sponsor of the Cox/Wyden/White anti-censorship legislation, discussing his new proposed amendment to the telecom bill, which is now in joint conference committee. As most of you are aware, several amendments to to the bill, many of them conflicting, are to be "reconciled", with the result, constitutional or otherwise, being sent to both houses of Congress for (likely) final approval, and thence to the President for his (at least fairly likely) signature. Among those amendments are several patently unconstitutional proposals, from the original Exon/Coats "Communications Decency Act", to a new, even more censorious amendment supported by the Christian Coalition, Ed Meese, and other representatives of the "religious right". EFF does not endorse any of the proposals that have been floated in the conference committee. We take the position that no content-control legislation should be passed. EFF remains committed to mounting constitutional challenges in court to any such legislation that passes. [begin forward] From: REPWHITE(a)HR.HOUSE.GOV Date: 04 Dec 1995 22:07:22 EST Subject: An open letter from Rep. Rick White to the Internet Communi To: mech(a)EFF.ORG Please forward this message to interested members of the Internet community. Thank you. Congressman Rick White -- AN OPEN LETTER TO THE INTERNET COMMUNITY December 4, 1995 To members of the Internet Community and Concerned Citizens: For the past several months, I have closely followed the online debate over Congressional attempts to impose content controls on the Internet. Your phone calls, letters, and email were instrumental in convincing 420 of my House colleagues to support the Cox/Wyden/White "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act." As you may know, on Wednesday, December 6th, the Telecommunications Reform Legislation Conference Committee, of which I am a member, will choose between two competing proposals: one offered by my colleague, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL), and my own proposal. I believe that the decision we reach on Wednesday will have a significant impact on the future of the Internet. While many of us who use the Internet feel that Congress should steer clear of any new regulation of the Internet and online information services, the reality is that proponents of more severe restrictions on online content have been successful in convincing many in Congress that new regulations are necessary. The conference committee is charged with reconciling several competing approaches to addressing children's access to objectionable material online. In June, the Senate, by an overwhelming majority passed the Exon/Coats "Communications Decency Act." In August, the House passed the Cox/Wyden/White "Internet Freedom and Family Empowerment Act," which emphasized parental empowerment over government content regulations. At the same time, the House also approved a new indecency crime sponsored by Chairman Hyde. As an avid Internet user and a strong believer in the enormous potential of cyberspace to educate, expand commercial opportunities, and create jobs, I have developed an alternative proposal that I expect to offer to conferees on Wednesday. My proposal will ensure freedom of speech and encourage the development of technological tools to help parents prevent their children from accessing inappropriate material online. It would also prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from controlling online content and from meddling in the underlying technologies of the net. In addition, my proposal will create tough penalties for those few bad actors who send truly objectionable material directly to minors or display such material. However, those who make good faith, reasonable efforts to label content and enable it to be blocked or filtered by parental control technologies (such as the PICS standards currently being developed by MIT and the World Wide Web Consortium) would be immune from prosecution. Briefly, my proposal: * Substitutes the narrow, "harmful to minors" standard instead of the broad, vague, and constitutionally suspect "indecency" standard. The "harmful to minors" standard refers to material that is sexually explicit and, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors. * Prohibits the Federal Government from regulating online content or from having oversight over the underlying technologies of the net. * Would prohibit displaying material that is "harmful to minors," but create immunity for those who make good faith and reasonable efforts to implement parental empowerment technologies that enable screening of unwanted content. * Would not impose liability on online service providers merely for transmitting the messages of their users. At this time, the only option for the conference committee is to choose between the White proposal or the Hyde substitute amendment. As the only option that minimizes government intrusion on freedom of speech, relies on parents to make their own choices about what material comes into their homes, and prevents the FCC from imposing regulations on online content, I hope you, as well as my colleagues in Congress, will agree with my approach. Sincerely, /s/ Rick White Member of Congress ************************************************* http://www.house.gov/white/welcome.html repwhite(a)hr.house.gov ************************************************* [end forward] -- <HTML><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/~mech/"> Stanton McCandlish </A><HR><A HREF="mailto:mech@eff.org"> mech(a)eff.org </A><P><A HREF="http://www.eff.org/"> Electronic Frontier Foundation </A><P> Online Activist </HTML>

2 1

unsuscribe
by KLEMEN RAMOVES 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

plz..unsuscribe me.. klemen@lj klemen@Lj -oz.sik.si KleMeN

2 1

SEQ_uel
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Science, Dec 1, 1995. "The Evolution of Molecular Computation." By Willem Stemmer. Comments on the limitations of Leonard Adleman's and Richard Lipton's DNA-computation research compared to the utility of sequence evolution computation. Although DNA sequencing of the selected solutions poses a practical problem for molecular computation, this drawback does not exist for computation with genetic algorithms or for in vitro evolution or computer simulations of natural evolution, called artificial life. Sequence evolution appears to be a useful general tool for solving many complex problems, whether the solution is a number, sequence, program, or structure. SEQ_uel (6 kb)

1 0

Re: Why Netscape employees should not leave
by Jeff Weinstein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Shostack wrote: > This leaves us to ask, why GAK is such a big deal at NIST, if > CKE will get them most of what they want? First, they haven't > realized that CKE is most of what they want. Second, they're worried > about the extra 10%. Drug dealers and terrorists not using it. (This > points towords an eventual mandate for GAK, even if it starts out > voluntary. Many have noted this.) Third, they've invested so much > energy in the fight for GAK that they're emotionally tied to the idea, > and they can't say 'well this would be almost as good.' It also allows them to stall on increasing the clearly inadequate export key size of 40-bit, while they are working on "an alternate solution". Given the overwelming negative response from industry over GAK, it may be nothing other than a delaying action. --Jeff -- Jeff Weinstein - Electronic Munitions Specialist Netscape Communication Corporation jsw(a)netscape.com - http://home.netscape.com/people/jsw Any opinions expressed above are mine.

1 0

Re: Solution for US/Foreign Software?
by daw＠boston.CS.Berkeley.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <199512062229.RAA16714(a)universe.digex.net>, Scott Brickner <sjb(a)universe.digex.net> wrote: > > I agree. It does bring to mind an idea, though. Netscape builds an > exportable system by choosing a random 128 bit number and then just > including 88 bits of it in plaintext. > > This means one of two things. Either there's a field which holds the > "key", but the export version stores 88 bits plain + 40 bits cipher, > and knows this structure, or there's a field which holds the 128 bit > enciphered key, and a second field which holds the 88 bits of plaintext > key. > It's the former (in SSL v2.0). I looked into this, because the former version can be vulnerable to related-key attacks, if not done right. SSL v2.0 does it right. (In particular, SSL v2.0 hashes both the 88 bit salt + 40 bit secret to get all the cipher keys.) > > In the former, the patch would be more significant, but still possible. > You'd disable the "write the plain" part and extend the "decode the > cipher" part to decode all 128 bits --- probably just a loop test. > (And you'd have to change the cipher type from RC4-40 to RC4-128.) Or write a local proxy to convert from RC4-40-salted to RC4-128. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMMZCbSoZzwIn1bdtAQF9xAGAqkg5VzChucF3FasK2pYVxg1D5F3lsnSP CFWsp+MbXKqTe71iznBvtg246xWPLohe =XM3W -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: News on Congressional Debate on Exon
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim wrote: >>If the Exon Bill really does go into effect, and age limits on access are >>imposed, I'll be looking for what we've always joked about: the >>"Information Superhighway Driver's License." To be perfectly honest, whenever I talked about this topic I wasn't joking. Prepare to see "felony Internet access" on the books before long. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

Re: unsuscribe
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

First, Mary Rose wrote: >unsuscribe And then KLEMEN RAMOVES wrote: plz..unsuscribe me.. klemen@lj klemen@Lj -oz.sik.si I sanse a patern, a change in the Englash linguage that I seem to have mist. Hmmhhh.... --Tiim Mae, Cyperponk 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

list
by KHARY PENEBAKER 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

put me on the list

1 0