December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Intel Committee Report on SAFE
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The House Select Committee on Intelligence has published its report on SAFE, including supporting and opposing views of its controversial amendment, estimated costs and analysis: http://jya.com/hr105-108-pt4.htm (195K)

1 0

Happy Halloween!
by carolann＠censored.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

May you find happiness on the Yellow Brick Road of Cryptography. (costuming of the highest art) Love Always, Carol Anne -- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [017/713] ------------------- M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M MF=O0H+*%(-S%&>S%+FS&<LS%3(Q&#W1"<]2%`H^;,]^1C$'HBN8PX$4SYAU^ MPGD<Q0ZLA0D+,`MCT!LA**4M[-JPAK9F?40!AJ,CW"'%DR#:'9?Q)3[%<DQ` ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0

PRL_har
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ito has shared an LA Times report of October 21 on frantic Japanese economic espionage, there and in the US, and its booming bugging and wiretapping industry. And The Wash Post simpers today about the CIA-Mils self- sucking into the eco-spy quagmire to garner funds, as spit in its toon yesterday. More non-crypto: FinTimes jabbers today in "Cars safe from phone threat," on the weird effects on automobile "electronic-based safety-critical systems" of pervasive sources of electro-magnetic interference, say by your mobile phone or police transceivers, that may catapult the family-fun Land Rover into Rancid's roadbus. PRL_har (3 all 15 kb)

1 0

Re: "Matchcode" technology sparks privacy flames.....
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:36:49 -0700 (PDT) From: Julie DeFalco <defalco(a)cei.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> Subject: Re: "Matchcode" technology sparks privacy flames..... 1) CEI's position on this stuff, in a nutshell, is that the only things the government should worry about on the Internet are the traditional things that the government ought to worry about: enforcing rule of law and private property rights. The government should not run around making up excuses to regulate privacy preferences on the internet. For a full exposition of our position, feel free to check out our filings on the FTC web page (www.ftc.gov) The biggest problem in my mind was that the FTC was talking about a medium that is pretty new and still has a lot of growing pains. The FTC wants to get in on the ground floor of regulation and direct the development of the Internet -- that's industrial policy and should be called that so at least we're all talking about the same thing. Meanwhile, lots of folks find it easier to cry out for a new regulation, rather than negotiate a solution among conflicting interests, which is time consuming and messy. This happens in all other industries, so it's not surprising that such pressure has emerged here. After all, regulators need an excuse for their jobs, and outside groups calling for more regulation often have the opportunity to direct how the regulation is written and implemented (in other words, they can gain power and access to power). I think that the problems discussed at the hearing are not only outside the proper sphere of government (actually, the FTC in my mind is outside the proper sphere of government), but that most of those problems would be eventually worked out in time. 2)>>>>One of the main assertions made by both sides in the privacy >>battles >>>>is people must be informed when a third party is gathering >>"personal" >>>>information about them. No, I never said that. I said that if you release information about yourself into a public sphere, then you have no right to control the downstream use of that information (because that is essentially controlling the behavior of others). I said that in terms of companies' web pages, it would probably be a good idea to inform people of this action. And that without a law, or even without government pushing, it would happen anyway. 3) Re: the gossip question: I was going to write what Declan said, only he said it much better. I don't think that you or anybody can properly draw a line between how much gossip is "too much" gossip, and when one should "draw a line." Maybe we know "too much gossip" when we see it, but do you really want to cede that much control over the speech and actions of others to a judge? That's it for now. Bye, Julie

1 0

[NOISE] (Was: Re: US government department for crime...)
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- John Young wrote, in his unique style: >Still, anonymous does make an astutely ironic observation, in >humorous lifting of the customary FinCEN cloak: > >That the hydra-headed agency may be literally aim at financial >*crimes* enforcement rather than enforcement of the laws >against such deeds. > > >Especially given the participating renegade agencies who seem >to absolve themselves of these laws. > > >Perhaps anonymous is right, they are a band of outlaws, daring >to overtly flaunt it, expecting no opposition from the gullible >cowed. > <I take the bait...> Actually, it's *two* bands of outlaws in concert, and the "gullible cowed" are beginning to clamor for anything else. This could be an interesting election year, if the media would ever-in-hell get out of lap-dog mode and into watch-dog mode. [I know...I'm not holding my breath.] JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh iQCVAwUBMJjAB21lp8bpvW01AQHnrQP/XU5uwUfR0e9ZpJ2y8+d7MExdruGwrnyW llp4rC6mNJl8IoyAkZG4ox79rK1mKqd4KzG/XP9lLzuqHCp9Cc5rR0ECe0I5RHnx WFv66KkcsvVlGSflyMiuDi3R/Ul6y4wEOCaxus4OSHM+NhOcVKQddlg0F5AgOPbL mzi7SF9/p0I= =DVN9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Jim Ray "Thank God we don't get all the government we pay for." Will Rogers Visit my "Pretty Good Homepage" at http://shopmiami.com/prs/jimray/ Featuring cypherpunk privacy stuff and some of my babypictures! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Key id. # E9BD6D35 (key on page & servers) <liberty(a)gate.net> IANAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Help Phil! email zldf(a)clark.net or http://www.netresponse.com/zldf _______________________________________________________________________

1 0

Not that I'm a troublemaker...
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: senator(a)kennedy.senate.gov From: HugeCajones Remailer<hc(a)dev.null> Subject: !!! DEATH THREAT !!! ... [I apologize if you have received this email in error. If you do not wish to receive further email from the Electronic Forgery Foundation then please send an email to "cypherpunks(a)toad.com" with a Subject heading that says, "I Voted For Strong Crypto!"] You should be careful before you do foolish things like making a death threat because it can have really bad results.

1 0

Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography, 2nd Edition
by norm＠mediacity.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Stanford University Book Store (om compus) has a bunch at about $49.

3 2

Re: US government department for crime enforcement!
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Still, anonymous does make an astutely ironic observation, in humorous lifting of the customary FinCEN cloak: That the hydra-headed agency may be literally aim at financial *crimes* enforcement rather than enforcement of the laws against such deeds. Especially given the participating renegade agencies who seem to absolve themselves of these laws. Perhaps anonymous is right, they are a band of outlaws, daring to overtly flaunt it, expecting no opposition from the gullible cowed.

1 0

Movie Suitcases
by A Player To Be Named Later 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone notice that there is a nuclear suitcase movie being released within a couple of weeks of the NSA shill Russian general's book about the same? So, does everybody now have it firm in their mind that this is a real threat that we will need to take firm action on the minute that Freeh & Company announce the nuclear suitcase crisis? Mail the last of your civil and human rights to your Congressman today. Tell him or her to forward them to President Freeh before leaving for the internment camps. A Player To Be Named Later

1 0

Re: [FRED] Anonymity and Integrity
by anonymous＠wmono.remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[note: i'm not the original 'anonymous user' in this thread] >If the message was not of any particular import to anyone, integrity >would not be a very big issue, but suppose you took quotes out of >context and cleverly tried to construct a picture of the other person >as not being reputable. People who read the message might believe that >what you said was true, or at least had a grain of truth to it. That >sort of message lacks integrity, and the reason it lacks integrity is >because it has anonymity, not just because it's false and misleading. I, for one, pay very little attention to the author of any given message on this list, and messages stand on their own merit. I take everything I read (here and elsewhere) with a grain of salt, and pay close attention to factual references if they are supplied to I can do my own investigating and draw my own conclusions, if the topic piques my interest. An anonymous posting has exactly the same 'integrity quotient' as any first-time poster; the reader has no historical perspective on the author, and the message should be accepted or discarded on its own merits, not by a blind "he's usually clueful" or "who the heck is this?" attitude. [erm.. I'm not attacking anyone here, just spewing some thoughts I haven't bothered to express yet..] (...) >Example: I have two (N) pseudonyms that put forth different points of >view specifically directed to create different kinds of credence to >different audiences. If the audiences knew that both (several) of the >pseudonyms were in fact the same person, they would have very different >beliefs about the individual given the combined picture than they might >get from any one of the pictures. [Obligatory _Ender's Game_ reference grudgingly suppressed] This happens in 'real life' all the time. I hide the details of my geeky job from my Friday-night friends, and don't bring up my recreational pharmaceutical use with my business associates. Either group would have different feelings about me if they had a 'combined picture' of my lifestyle. >It's not only the True Name that's at issue. It's the association of a Personally, I find the quest for employment of any True Name scheme hogwash, simply because of the multifaceted nature of human existence (see above), where pseudonimity (virtual or social) is a part of everyday life. True Names are logically almost impossible anyway. What base criteria would a government, company, or other organization use to assign and make use of a True Name? Driver's license? (fake) .. DNA fingerprint? (cloning) .. any attempt to pin /me/ down to a single facet of existence is doomed to failure, given how adept the bad guys are at keeping ahead of the good guys. >set of messages and historical information with a source. For example, >if we knew you were a KGB agent working in the disinformation and >economic espionage branches, we might evaluate your postings differently >than if we knew you were a high-school student from Deluth whose father >taught her a lot about cryptography when she was young. We all have hidden agendas; personally, until I reach godlike status (btw, anyone have any spare eye of newt laying around?) I'll have to be content with judging most things I read with a healthy dose of cynicism, and squeeze what 'truth' I can out of it. I've been surprised too many times by hidden goals and 'double agents' to put much stock in /anything/ sent down my pipe. There's also an argument that the most prolific pseudonyms and 'real' account-holders have Something They Want Us To Believe and should be trusted no further than they can be thrown .. analogous, in my book, to politicians .. perhaps the anonymous are the /only/ entities we can trust... -- Oinker - anonymous today in case any of you are my clients :P

1 0