December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Is ths legal?... (fwd)
by Jay Holovacs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 17 Dec 1995, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: > Exactly. If Oklahoma University is private, it can establish and enforce > policies that would be unconstitutional at public schools. Those > policies become part of the contract and a student must abide by them, > except when they are administered arbitrarily and capriciously. At a > public universities, students probably would have more freedom to > challenge this policy. Think about this principle in light of the current political climate toward "privatization." Moves to privatize schools, prisons, even police forces in a few communities. Sounds like a good way around all those <pesky> constitutional protections. > A recent article from the school's student newspaper says: > > "In the third part, the policy states that the university reserves the > right of access to user e-mail... It seems to me that there is some legal status to email established by Congress in the late '80s, especially that which comes in from outside with 'some expectation' of privacy. I've got to rummage around for the details however. Jay Holovacs <holovacs(a)ios.com> PGP Key fingerprint = AC 29 C8 7A E4 2D 07 27 AE CA 99 4A F6 59 87 90 (KEY id 1024/80E4AA05) email for key

1 0

Re: Is ths legal?.. (fwd)
by Jay Holovacs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is the reference I couldn't find for my previous post. It would seem to have some relevance here Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA) (18 U.S.C. ss 2510 et seq.). "It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or agent of a provider of wire *or electronic* communication service, whose facilities are used in the trans- mission of a wire communication, to intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or service quality control checks." 18 USC section 2510(2)(a)(i). Doesn't seem to leave much room for snooping on contents of messages. Jay Holovacs <holovacs(a)ios.com> PGP Key fingerprint = AC 29 C8 7A E4 2D 07 27 AE CA 99 4A F6 59 87 90 (KEY id 1024/80E4AA05) email me for key

2 3

BosniaLINK
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

URL: http://www.dtic.dla.mil/bosnia/ BosniaLINK Banner Welcome to BosniaLINK, the official Department of Defense information system about U.S. military activities in Operation JOINT ENDEAVOR, the NATO peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. This system is provided by the Office of the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs. All information in BosniaLINK is publicly released information from the U.S. government or NATO headquarters. BosniaLINK contains operation maps, fact sheets, news releases, biographies of key commanders and leaders, and transcripts of briefings, speeches and testimony. It is also hyperlinked to the NATO and State Department information services. _________________________________________________________________ Contents * Maps (Dec 8) * Fact Sheets (Dec 12) * News Releases (Dec 15) * Photos (Dec 15) * Biographies of Key Commanders and Leaders (Dec 15) * Transcripts of Briefings (Dec 15) * Speeches and Testimony (Dec 15) _________________________________________________________________ RELATED SITES FOR BOSNIA INFORMATION Air Force Role in Bosnia NATO U.S. State Department: U.S. Policy on Bosnia Navy News Service: Bosnia Operations _________________________________________________________________ BosniaLINK is provided through the cooperative efforts of the Office of The Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), and the Defense Technical Information Center. This is a government computer system. _________________________________________________________________ DefenseLINK Home

3 2

Re: Is ths legal?...
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:18 AM 12/17/95 -0500, you wrote: >Exactly. If Oklahoma University is private, it can establish and enforce >policies that would be unconstitutional at public schools. Those >policies become part of the contract and a student must abide by them, >except when they are administered arbitrarily and capriciously. At a >public universities, students probably would have more freedom to >challenge this policy. In looking at their homepage, it appears to be a state funded school. (There is not alot of background on the school history or affiliations on their homepage except for a note that it was founded by the territorial legislature a number of years before becoming a state..) | What is the Eye in the Food Pyramid? | alano(a)teleport.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmerman unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | <fnord> |

4 3

RE: Political Cleanup program
by Russ Cooper 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A much simpler solution might be to just force all politicians to give up their campaign funds when they retire, or even better, immediately following the elections. Today, whatever is left in their campaign funds are given over to them when they retire or are forced out of office, on top of their lucrative pensions. Cheers, Russ

2 1

Re: Political Cleanup program
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:04 AM 12/17/95 -0800, you wrote: >It occurs to me that it would be a major advance if a system could be set up >that would "blind" campaign donations as to their source: The donor could >be satisfied that his donation gets to the candidate or cause, but the >candidate couldn't know who actually paid the money (and the donor would be >unable to prove that he made a donation, for example). Admittedly there are >a lot of details that need to be worked out, but if this could be >accomplished it would change politics as we know it. I think you would see alot less donations by the corporate powers that be and the favormongers. (Which is why such a system will probibly never come into existance.) It would be a good step in the right direction. However... I live in a state which just inacted a series of campaign reforms. The first thing the lobbyists did was find a way to exploit every loophole possible to get around that legislation. Such a system would have to be pretty tight and pretty specific. (And therefore will be fought against by almost every politician ansd lobbyiest on the planet.) The fundraising dinners will certainly have to go... > > > > > > > | Remember: Life is not always champagne. Sometimes it is REAL pain. | |"It's only half a keyserver. I had to split the | Disclaimer: | |other half with the government man." - R. Rococo | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

GLO_bul
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

12-18-95. NYPaper: "His Goal: Keeping the Web Worldwide." An adoration of selfless Tim Berners-Lee with a pan gloss of the World Wide Web Cartel. "From Mainframes to Global Networking." I.B.M.'s selfless strategy for Net supremacy, hand-in-hand with altruistic AT&T and eleemosynary Microsoft. GLO_bul (17kb)

1 0

2 websites
by prf＠teleport.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Interested in Term Limits? See http://www.termlimits.org Grass Roots Research's "Portrait of America" at http://www.grr.com Paul R. Farago, Portland OR

1 0

Re: PAY-OFF TIME FOR BUG-BUSTERS, NETSCAPE PLEDGES "DOGFIGHT"
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 15 Dec 1995 anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: > On Fri, 15 Dec 1995, Alice de 'nonymous wrote: > > > Can anyone tell me whether Ian Goldberg and David Wagner got their $25,000 > > from Netscape for finding the HUGE security flaws in Netscape's existing > > product line?? > > > > Alice de 'nonymous ... <an455120(a)anon.penet.fi> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > Heh, hey Alice, you know this discussion a short time ago where you > claimed that you wouldn't use PGP for signing because it wasn't secure > or something, what's with the use of the penet address? Uhhm, actually, I said that I don't have a secure machine to run PGP on, and that I didn't feel that I should have to travel across town to use a secure machine to ask whether or not Ian Goldberg and or David Wagner got any moola from Netscape or AT&T for helping to make these companies a fortune. Did they get their $25,000, or a scholarship, or a Christmas week or two at the Halekulani in Honolulu?? They helped out these companies, and here it is, less than ten days to Christmas, and what have these companies done?? Nothing ... nothing at all ... but freeload ... > Surely a penet address offers even less protection for your id? > > Or have you done something nifty like create the penet address with a > nymserver address? Yep, something like that ... you must be paying attention, my friendly "spoofing" shadow. The Penet address is simply to prevent huge email from being mailed to me. I don't want AT&T or Netscape to mailbomb me for simply writing the truth about them. Penet gives me some protection. I'm not looking to Penet to protect my "identity". All I want Penet to do is provide a way for people to write to me if they want to. Alice de 'nonymous ... <an455120(a)anon.penet.fi> ...just another one of those... P.S. This post is in the public domain. C. S. U. M. O. C. L. U. N. E.

1 0

What ever happened to... Cray Comp/NSA co-development
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- O.K. I'm new... however... I remember reading an article about this news release in mid '94 (I believe it was the NY Times), about the time that Cray Computer Company (Seymour's unsuccessful spinoff company) was actively seeking bank financing. Anyone remember? The article was about an NSA contract award to Cray Computer. In some background: The Supercomputer industry had been struggling for a while with reductions in purchases from the U.S. government due to cutbacks on research spending and the 'end of the cold war'. The situation at MasPar had gotten to the point of court reorginization or worse. In June (of '94) Cray was in such a cash squeeze that it took out a $17.5 million secured loan to fend collapse. During July, Cray announced that it was seeking a "partner" to make an investment in exchange for technology access. Guess who shows up with plans to build "the ultimate spying machine"? Now, Seymour's a nice guy, but money is tight, so he buys in on the hopes for more a lucrative future relationship. The plot thickens. The contract calls for Cray to put up $4.6 million to cover the initial development (didn't they just take out a loan?) of which about $400,000 will go to the NSA for so called "software consulting services". It makes one wonder what the "real" contract was worth (such as producing this surveillance system in quantity)? There was some speculation in the article about what this system could be used for, such as DEA operations outside U.S. borders (Columbia perhaps) or foreign military communication or enhancement processing of spy satellite photos. What caught my attention was the architecture. A "hybrid design linking two supercomputer processors with an array of HALF A MILLION inexpensive processors" that were designed by the U.S. government laboratory affiliated with the NSA. The same chip house that brought us Clipper. I've not kept up with the "ultimate" demise that eventually befell Cray Computer Company, but the October 16 FBI filing on capacity for Digital Telephony got me thinking back to this article. 1% seems like a rather huge need for horsepower. And what if GAK doesn't fly? And the widespread use of hard crypto just keeps increasing? This kind of machine could, in theory: 1) Implement ALL Clipper(II) based Key Escrow functionality in silicon (the easy part) AND allow for simultaneous decrypt and surveil of 'who knows how many' Clipper based data streams. 2) Implement general RSA based Prime Factoring functionality in silicon (the not so easy part) AND allow massively parallel decrypt and surveil of 'who knows how many' RSA/etc. based data streams. 3) Implement it all, AND 'on-line' transaction based surveillance via the FBI's 1% capacity infrastructure. Chilling... Who needs key escrow (or RSA private keys) when you've got a massively parallel prime factoring machine. What if GAK was to become a 'non-issue'? How fast do you think a machine such as this could factor RSA 129? Makes you wonder if 2048 bits will be enough (my guess.. it won't). But then, I'm sure that when Cray Computer finally folded (has/hasn't?) all that tech just got sold for scrap eh? Anitro - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMNSadioZzwIn1bdtAQEgYwF+Nf5Azpeore6OPMNU94CpCawxPcPg8g7T kLQDY9I5Upk7vCe1dCpHm14g8jRYdSDx =vjJA -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0