December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Wearing RSA shirt to school
by Ian Goldberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

OK, I'm confused. Is it or is it not legal to disclose cryptology to a foreigner? T.C.May (I think it was; sorry if I misremember this) posted a couple of days ago that it _was_ legal (citing that textbooks are not stopped from being published internationally). Perhaps this is just because the publishers of these texts never applied for an export license (maybe)? I was reading Bernstein vs. US Dept. of State, et al. (http://pgp.ai.mit.edu/~bal/legal/complaint-950221.html) and found this: G. RESULT OF DEFENDANTS' REJECTION OF PLAINTIFF'S CJ REQUEST 71. Plaintiff's scientific paper, algorithm and computer program are speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, by rejecting Plaintiff's CJ Request, Defendants have determined that these items are "defense articles or defense services" which may not be exported without submitting to the above-described prior restraints. Since Defendants define "export" to include disclosing or transferring cryptology to a foreign person anywhere in the world, including within the United States, Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that he is required by law to obtain a license to publish or publicly discuss any of the Items whether within or outside the United States. 72. Plaintiff is presently unable to publish his scientific paper, algorithm or computer program within or outside the United States. The only reason preventing publication is the threat of prosecution for an illegal export if he does so without a license. 73. To this date, Plaintiff has not received a response to his appeal or a license to publish his paper, algorithm, or computer program and as a result, he has not published the Items. So it seems to me (at least according to the Plaintiff (EFF, I guess)), that the ITAR regulations _do_ restrict publication and public discussion of cryptology. - Ian "and why is Canada considered part of the US for this?"

1 0

Re: Emergency File Wipe Algorithim
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:44 9/5/95, Andrew Loewenstern wrote: >Of course, you data must be worth quite a pretty penny for an attacker to >attempt to recover data from the oxides on the cells in your RAM. Didn't I just read a day ago that Robert Morris (ex-NSA) cautioned that one should never underestimate the time and effort an opponent is willing to put into recovering your data? May I also point out that the rules of economics do not apply to the federal government, since it insits - quite successfully - on having a monoploy on using lethal force to extract arbitraily large amounts from hundreds of millions of working Americans? -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

NTSC version BBC-4 show (cryptography/privacy)
by baum＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have a copy of the recent BBC 4 show on cryptography & privacy, transferred from PAL to NTSC so it can be watched here. Anyone who wants to borrow it (& lives in the SF Bay area) is welcome to email/call me to arrange to borrow it. ************************************************** * Allen J. Baum tel. (408)974-3385 * * Apple Computer, MS/305-3B fax (408)974-0907 * * 1 Infinite Loop * * Cupertino, CA 95014 baum(a)apple.com * **************************************************

1 0

Re: Commercial Mixmaster (was Re: Mixmaster status)
by loki＠obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

That is correct. The current code can not be recalled. That is part of why I released it that way. So that I could not be coerced into withdrawing it. -Lance At 12:48 PM 9/15/95, Futplex wrote: >Anonymous writes: ># Consider this scenario ... Mixmaster get's bought by the Acme ># Crypto Company of Ft. Meade, MD. They "improve" it, and offer a new ># version. It's even FREE (for non-commerical use)! But their ># "improvements" make it incompatible with previous versions, and so ># you have to upgrade. The new "commercial" version comes with no ># SOURCE CODE, of course... > >Lance Cottrell writes: >> 4) There will always be a free version of the client with source code. >> >> While I have not discussed it, I can not imagine that there would not also >> be a free version of the server code (with source). Without remailers what >> is the point of the client software? > >Beyond taking Lance on his PGP-signed-word, which I'm strongly inclined to do, >I suspect he may not have much legal leeway in this regard. > >With the caveat that I Am Not A Lawyer, it seems to me that the GNU General >Public License (Version 1 from 1989, Mix/GNU.license in the Mixmaster .tar or >http://hopf.math.nwu.edu/docs/Gnu_License) which covers all extant >distributions of Mixmaster, has some significant implications for any >commercial development of Mixmaster. It's applicable to "the Program or any >derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the >Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or >translated into another language". > >The GNU GPL specifies that: > > 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of > it, and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of > Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following: > [...] > b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that > in whole or in part contains the Program or any part thereof, either > with or without modifications, to be licensed at no charge to all > third parties under the terms of this General Public License (except > that you may choose to grant warranty protection to some or all > third parties, at your option). > >and that: > > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a portion or > derivative of it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable > form under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you > also do one of the following: > a) accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable > source code, [...] or, > b) accompany it with a written offer, [...] to give any third party > free (except for a nominal charge for the cost of distribution) a > complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, [...] > >So it looks to me as though Mixmaster source code will continue to be >legally available, no matter what.... > >Better informed interpretations are enthusiastically solicited. > >-Futplex <futplex(a)pseudonym.com> ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

laptop passwords
by RopeGun＠alaska.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've got a dilema. 2 laptops that I just purchased at a police auction have passwords, from what I can tell they are passworded at the cmos level. I would normaly just pull out the battery and clear the cmos but these are laptops and I'm not to comfortable about doing that. Any ideas? laptop1 - Toshiba Satelite Pro T2400CT laptop2 - Epson Action Note 500 c Oren Tanay RopeGun Productions \\V// o o J +--

1 0

Re: Linking = Showing = Transferring?
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>To:cyberia-l@warthog.cc.wm.edu >>From:tcmay@got.net (Timothy C. May) >>Subject:Linking = Showing = Transferring? >>_Linking_ is effectively _showing_, given the point-and-click mechanics of >>hypertext. This is a situation anticipated by authors (e.g. Ted Nelson), >>but is now coming to the fore. >> >>Granted, providing a link is not the same as actually _including_ the >>material the link points to, but it is very, very close. Arguably, the >>same. There are two important differences. The first difference is in ownership of the data. If the source of the link decides to clobber the file, then the fact that I have a page with the URL does not guarantee access to that file for the user of *my* page. Similarly, the person owning the file can freely change the content of the file, without my changing the URL which points to it. The other difference is in handling of the data. If the link were to a pornographic image and someone were to access it through my page's URL, the bits of that image would never touch my computer. Meanwhile, <a href="http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/"> RSA encryption system in PERL </a> might be a URL which violates US export laws -- if this interpretation were to be taken -- but if so, does it violate them in this mail message? That depends, I suppose, on whether your mail agent is aware of URLs and turns them into point-and-click units. Is it a violation if the URL is printed in a paper magazine? After all, it's the convenience of the web browser which is at issue. One can invoke netscape with or without a parameter. Yes -- interesting legal times ahead. - Carl +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | |PGP: E0414C79B5AF36750217BC1A57386478 & 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | | ``Officer, officer, arrest that man! He's whistling a dirty song.'' | +----------------------------------------------------------- Jean Ellison -+ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMFniL1QXJENzYr45AQFlYAP8DGHGk6EEmHXyPbeA7hoZjQ1pkEiyW2xB 1srFbXVsdJt9cwNQbBmFSfKARKVOnh1f+rEEqFZEwXXS1BbwlSljDz/hykZwfQwv h1kXPvJ9MMqleg6y8IXM5nTL9lKnq+ThKmgl/aciDYZqZ009IL4ssb81gUA5r5lC mYkfhqulWsU= =AYRX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Commercial Mixmaster (was Re: Mixmaster status)
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> With the caveat that I Am Not A Lawyer, it seems to me that the GNU General > Public License (Version 1 from 1989, Mix/GNU.license in the Mixmaster .tar or > http://hopf.math.nwu.edu/docs/Gnu_License) which covers all extant > distributions of Mixmaster, has some significant implications for any > commercial development of Mixmaster. It's applicable to "the Program or any > derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the > Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or > translated into another language". > Most common mis-understanding about the GPL. If you GPL something, *you* hold the copyright to the material, and can still do anything you want with it. See Perl for a good example - released under an artistic license and under GPL. GPL prevents *others* from making distributions without distributing the source code. Of course, if you accept GPL'ed patches to your code, the whole thing gets messy, as now you can't claim complete ownership of the entire code base. I have simplified this - go to gnu.misc.discuss for a complete rehash of this subject every 2-3 weeks. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

Re: "Use implies consent to monitoring"
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

`h > Please be advised that use constitutes consent to monitoring Use of what?

1 0

Re: Commercial Mixmaster (was Re: Mixmaster status)
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Better informed interpretations are enthusiastically solicited. Lance owns the code. He can take it, strip off the copyright, and transfer all rights to Bill Gates for a million bucks. He cannot, however, rescind the copyright or licenses that he has previously given out. /r$

1 0

Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What's in a name? That which we call a rose would by any other name still smell as sweet. Surely, right now, there are more important things to work on. /r$

1 0