December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Using anon.remailers
by Eric Anderson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would someone point me to where I can read about how to use the cypherpunk and mixmaster type of anon.remailers? Thanks, Eric

1 0

Fwd: Corporate Crime and CDT Funding on behalf of so-called medical privacy
by JWRCLUM＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--------------------- Forwarded message: From: gcook(a)tigger.jvnc.net (Gordon Cook) Sender: med-privacy(a)essential.org Reply-to: gcook(a)tigger.jvnc.net To: med-privacy(a)essential.org (Multiple recipients of list) Date: 95-11-20 22:44:48 EST The following article appeared in the current issue of Corporate Crime Reporter (Volume 9, Number 44, November 20, 1995, page one). It is redisseminated on the Internet with the permission of CCR. SELF-PROCLAIMED "PUBLIC INTEREST" GROUP HEAVILY FUNDED BY COMPUTER, TELECOMMUNICATIONS, DATABANK CORPORATIONS THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM "MEDICAL PRIVACY" LEGISLATION GROUP SUPPORTS -- EQUIFAX, TRW, DUNN & BRADSTREET IN THE MIX The Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), a self- proclaimed "public interest organization," is in fact heavily funded by large private computer, telecommunications, and databank corporations. Funders of CDT, a two-year old Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization, include Dunn & Bradstreet Corp., Equifax Inc., and TRW Information Services, three large databank corporations that stand to benefit from federal legislation CDT actively helped shaped and is shepherding through Congress. This year, CDT has received $699,643 from more than 30 large corporations, including $100,000 from Microsoft, $75,000 from AT&T, $60,000 from Bell Atlantic, $50,000 from Apple Computer, $25,000 from IBM, $10,000 from TRW Information Services, $10,000 from Dunn & Bradstreet, $5,000 from Direct Marketing Association, and $5,000 from Equifax Inc. (For a complete list of CDT's funders, see At A Glance, page 16) At a hearing before the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee last week, CDT deputy director Janlori Goldman said that CDT "strongly supports" legislation, S. 1360, sponsored by Senators Robert Bennett (R-Utah) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), because it represents "the most comprehensive and strong privacy bill the Congress has yet considered in this area." But opponents of the bill argue that the legislation is not a privacy statute at all, but instead is a vehicle that would legitimize the creation of large computerized databanks of personal medical information, thus benefitting those companies like TRW and Equifax that give financial support to CDT. The legislation would allow for broad, unauthorized searches of those databanks, opponents claim. In an interview, Goldman told Corporate Crime Reporter that all of CDT's corporate funding is earmarked for other projects and that none of the corporate funding is supporting her work on the medical privacy bill. "The corporate funding is not related at all, in any way shape or form to my work on this bill," Goldman said. "The reason we are doing this bill is that I've worked on privacy issues for a decade. The most important privacy issue to work on is the passage of the medical records privacy legislation. That is a very sincere issue for me." "None of the corporate support that CDT gets is related to my work on this bill," Goldman emphasized. "None. Zippo." CDT's executive director, Jerry Berman agreed. "We have no funding for the medical privacy project -- zero," Berman said. But critics of the CDT's position on the legislation were skeptical. "During the Senate hearing this week, Senator Bennett was angered at the suggestion that S. 1360 was an industry bill," said Jamie Love of Ralph Nader's Center for Study of Responsive Law. "He claimed that he had widely consulted with privacy groups and patient advocates. CDT's Janlori Goldman was the key person who decided who was in the loop, and who was not in the loop on this issue. Groups that were not receptive to the idea of massive database systems of personal medical records were excluded from deliberations." "To find out that CDT has been funded by companies such as Equifax, TRW, Dunn & Bradstreet, IBM and the telephone companies is remarkable, because these are among the groups who have the most at stake in legitimizing and preserving the current system of maintaining and managing medical records," Love said. "I think that Janlori Goldman should have mentioned in her Senate testimony that CDT was funded by corporations who have an interest in this issue." "If CDT were doing its job, TRW and Equifax wouldn't want to give it money," Love added. Harold Eist, president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association, said that "any datagathering and large computer company would clearly benefit from legislation that drives large amounts of individually identified data about American citizens into data banks without the knowledge and permission of those American citizens." "Selling that information would represent a gold mine for those companies," Eist said. "It is not surprising that an organization with a disingenuous name -- Center for Democracy & Technology -- would be supporting a bill with a disingenuous name -- The Medical Records Confidentiality Act," Eist said. "In fact, this bill represents an effort to give away the privacy of American citizens without their knowledge." "My understanding is that Janlori Goldman was involved in writing the bill," Eist said. "It seems to me that as a former civil libertarian, she should know very well that there are loopholes in that bill regarding protections to privacy that you could drive a Mack truck through." "Unless people can be assured that their privacy will be protected, there is little or no chance that they will reveal the kind of tormented and dark secrets that they have to reveal to recover from their illnesses," Eist said. "Confidentially is the sine qua non of medical treatment, and especially if it is psychiatric medical treatment." A driving force behind the effort to derail the Bennett/Leahy bill is Denise Nagel, a Boston physician who organized the Coalition for Patient Rights of New England "to restore confidentiality to the doctor-patient relationship." Nagel refused to comment on CDT's funding. At the Senate hearing last week, Nagel told the committee "I have no industry ties." Nagel charged that S. 1360 was written "to advance the interests of certain segments of the computer, telecommunications, data processing and health-care industries." "With this bill they would be able to careen full speed ahead to develop data networks that will give innumerable people access to our medical records legally and without our knowledge," Nagel said. "I am convinced that S. 1360 is not at all primarily concerned with the confidentiality of medical records," Nagel told the committee. "It is just the opposite. It talks about informed consent, but then authorizes the creation of databases without patient knowledge or consent. It talks about individual rights, and then allows police broad authority to search databases directly instead of obtaining a specific record from the patient's doctor. It talks about civil and criminal sanctions, and then pre-empts all common law and most existing and future state statutes. It talks about ensuring personal privacy with respect to medical records, and then sets a ceiling rather than a floor on medical confidentiality." AT A GLANCE: CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY FUNDING, 1994- 1995 American Advertising Federation 500.00 America Online, Inc. 25,000.00 Apple Computer Inc. 50,000.00 AT&T 75,000.00 Bell Atlantic 60,000.00 Business Software Alliance 6,000.00 Cellular Tellecomm Indust Assn 10,000.00 CompuServ 30,000.00 Delphi Internet Services Corp 10,000.00 Direct Marketing Association 5,000.00 Dunn & Bradstreet Corp 10,000.00 EMA 5,000.00 Equifax Inc. 5,000.00 John Gilmore 2,500.00 Hartford Foundation 153,000.00 IBM 25,000.00 Information Technology Industry 5,000.00 Interactive Digital Software 5,000.00 Lotus 6,250.00 MARC 80,000.00 MCI Telecommunications 15,000.00 Microsoft 100,000.00 National Cable Television Assn 15,000.00 Netscape Communications Corp 5,000.00 Newspaper Association of Am 5,000.00 Nynex Government Affairs 25,000.00 Pacific Telesis 25,000.00 Prodigy Service Company 10,000.00 Software Publishers Assn 10,000.00 Time Warner Inc 5,000.00 TRW Information Svcs 10,000.00 US Telephone Association 10,000.00 US West Inc 10,000.00 Total Funding 814,020.00 Received 1994 114,377.00 Received 1995 699,643.00 Total Funding 814,020.00 Russell Mokhiber russell(a)essential.org voice: 202/429-6928

1 0

Re: "Junk E-Mail"
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sten wrote: > They (as in, the government) has used the RICO laws against >Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion/pro-life (pick your term) group for >protesting/picketing abortion clinics and doctors who perform abortions. And for successfully encouraging the murder of doctors. >If they had prosecuted under statutes which applied to everyone, I >wouldn't have had a problem, but they are going after OR and similar >organizations for using tactics similar to those used by civil rights >protesters in the 60s. Who were systematically arrested, beaten, teargassed, wiretapped, and even occasionally shot at. I *know*--I got firehosed, beaten, arrested, and wiretapped for what I did. That's why I'm a Cypherpunk now. OR has received far better treatment than the civil rights protesters ever did--or did I miss the news items reporting that Terry Randall and Ralph Reed had been assassinated, and that their lieutenants had been bumped off in black-bag jobs, and that their colleagues were chained down to chairs *in court*? > 'Course, civil rights is Politically Correct. >Abortion rights is Politically Correct. Protesting abortion is >Politically Incorrect, therefore illegal. Do you usually send nursery rhymes to mailing lists?

2 1

Re: LACC: DEA Agents Accuse CIA of Tapping Phones
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Brian B. Riley, CIA friend wrote wrote: >>[...] We've known for years now that >>the jackbooted thugs of the DEA are by far the most law-abusing, >>disrespectful, rights-sneering, down-and-dirty, life-threatening, >>hair-raising agents of the entire US Government. Bar none. They've >>got to be watched, because they're a nasty threat to individual >>liberty, and because they routinely interfere with the legitimate >>work of other American intelligence agencies. (And they've been >>monitored, by the way, since at least 1984, to my knowledge.) ........................................................ Well, there's watching, and then there's Just Watching. I would think that if some agency known to be so untrustworthy that it requires "watching", that it also deserves some action against its unacceptable activities immediately as they are discovered. It's rather ineffective to just passively monitor/watch what someone is doing, and keeps doing. This becomes more like voyeurism. Which recalls to mind the difference in the effect of surveillance upon different kinds of people: to those with personal standards for self-control/self-government, it is highly disturbing; to those with none, it is not even annoying. Just a comment on surveillance in general.

1 0

Proving I'm not Bob.
by s1113645＠tesla.cc.uottawa.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had an idea for an advertising based net-payment scheme that has a particular security flaw making it totally untrustworthy unless it is possible to prove that you are not a particular person (the publisher receiving the ad money) when consuming (viewing or otherwise) the ads. All its other flaws seem to based on the same sort of identity denial problem. Damn! Any protocols, cryptographic or otherwise? TIA

5 5

Re: Are there enough FBI agents to handle Digital Telephony?????
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:05 PM 11/21/95, Peter Wayner wrote: >Has anyone ever done the math on the FBI's new wire tapping >proposals and determined whether they'll have enough agents to >do all of the listening? Doesn't a court ordered wire tap >require that people listen in and screen the recordings. Does >this have to be in real time? I can't remember, but I think >there is a fairly onerous evidentiary chain required to use this >technology. ... The manpower shortage can be solved by moving the listening step offshore, perhaps to one of the Carribbean islands that processes credit card slips. Even cheaper would be to subcontract out the listening to the relatively impoverished, but well-educated and English-trained, former Soviet bloc nations. For example, Romania or Bulgaria, or even Russia. They may still have the old listening infrastructure in place, although I hear that Stasi headquarters in the former DDR is now an acupuncture clinic. --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."

3 2

Re: politics aren't all or nothing
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark Hedges wrote about our reps in government: >They're really well educated people, for the most part --- >somewhere along the line they must have gotten that stuff about >"considering that you are incorrect" and the rest. .................................................... Most Senators & Representatives have been educated to know the answers to questions like: 5. How many branches of the federal government are there? 6. How many senators are there in the U.S. Congress? 7. How many years are there in a Senate term? rather than the answers to questions like: 3. What are the reasons for each of rights enumerated by the Bill of Rights? 4. What are the rights of the government? Does it have any? 5. What is the difference between rights and powers? So part of the problem is that conversations don't necessarly proceed along the same lines; that is, towards achieving the same end. A philosopher I read stated that the difference in certain controversies is that the parties are not aligned towards the same goals because they do not hold the same *values* (even before getting into a consideration of the means used to support those values). But I have noted that it is much easier to discuss anything with anyone who, regardless of their political or philosophical inclinations or past education, has an open, rational state of mind; i.e., someone who *thinks* about things, who is fearless about introducing facts into their mental content and will not back away from seeing the whole picture. Otherwise they will be moved to make decisions based on convenience, rather than on a wide perspective of what it will do to one's way of life in the future. Harried Congressmen who have too many decisions to make and inadequate background preparation and too little time to make those decisions, are not going to be as eager to reason on the meanings and significance and consequences of many of the bills and requests for government action which they receive, even if they *are* bright and educated. If I was in their position, I would think it would be imperative to know very quickly what to eliminate from serious consideration, even more than of calculating what sort of governing action to take. But they are elected to govern, and by jove, that is what they set themselves to do, regardless. Try to convince them that we don't need them all that much. <g> .. Blanc

1 0

toolkits?
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Alice here ... No, *I* am the real Alice, and I refuse to use PGP signing. Alice de 'nonymous ... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.

1 0

toolkits?
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

|Alice here ... | |No, *I* am the real Alice, and I refuse to use PGP signing. | |Alice de 'nonymous ... | | |P.S. This post is in the public domain. | C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E. No, *I* am the real Alice, and *I* refuse to use PGP signing. Alice de 'nonymous ... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.

1 0

Re: New Computer Security Act
by Blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: >Blanc, >I believe the less we know about Tim's intentions for that fateful day, >the better we are off. :-) ................................................ Well, somebody please take notes, and maybe a camera for pictures for a web site (in case things get very exciting). Inquiring minds want to know! .. Blanc

1 0