December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

John Doe
by jdoe-0007＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The John Doe NYM/Remailer interface for Windows is a most excellent program that will allow even the most cypher-illiterate to make use of the technology that has been the exclusive domain of those in the "techno-know". It was a piece of cake to set up, obtain a NYM and select inbound and outbound remailers with options to chain as many as your paranoia deemed appropriate. $25.00 seemed a little steep but they will get my $$$. Nice Job. John Doe 0007

1 0

Re: "This post is G-Rated"
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 18:11 1/25/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >Suppose "alt.fan.barney" is rated G, by "someone." Since I can post stuff >with strong language, and worse, to alt.fan.barney, is it still rated G, or >was my stuff blocked? What you will see is something like this: all lists/newsgroups will have to be moderated with the name of the moderator clearly stated just as it is in print magazines today. If something that is potentially dangerous to children, that is any information that might encourage anyone to think for themselves, gets posted, the moderator will be held liable. Since that will lead to the moderator erring on the side of caution, discussions on USENET/ mailing lists will become next to useless and therefor die out for anything non-technical (no, that won't include cryptography) or politically incorrect. Any ISPs carrying non-moderated groups or mailing lists is subject to the often mentioned mandatory long years in prison under the Child Protection Act of 1998. It is all rather simple. And the public will thank the kind and caring legislators that show such deep concerns for their children. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

NOISE Test Ignore
by jdoe-agamemnon＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Test Test Test

1 0

Re: "Concryption" Prior Art
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Death rays from Mars made pcw(a)access.digex.net (Peter Wayner) write: >I haven't read the supposed Concryption patent so I don't know >what the claim structure is. But if they truly claim the right >to do encryption and compression simultaneously, then I've got >some prior art that should knock out such a broad claim. The >paper is "A Redundancy Reducing Cipher" (Cryptologia, May 88). >It's not very secure, but it does do some manner of encryption >at the same time as compressing a file with a Huffman-like >system. The journal is found in many university libraries so it >should be easy to produce a solid counterclaim. There's a much earlier paper by Frank Rubin in a 1979 Cryptologia which covers encryption+compression with Huffman and arithmetic coding. However the Con-cryption patent covers first compressing, then encrypting. Unless they've got very good lawyers, you can probably ignore it. Peter.

1 0

Re: "This post is G-Rated"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I typically enjoy Lucky's jaundiced analyses, but I think he is overly paranoid in this one: At 5:28 AM 1/26/96, Lucky Green wrote: >What you will see is something like this: all lists/newsgroups will have to >be moderated with the name of the moderator clearly stated just as it is in >print magazines today. If something that is potentially dangerous to First, printed material does *not* have to have an author or publisher specified. The usual case cited is the Supreme Court decision on "anonymous handbills." I know of some zines that have no identifiable origin point. And anonymous pieces are published (even where the publisher/editor does not know the true author.) Second, Usenet is a global thing. Which national laws will apply? If the U.S. somehow is dumb enough to demand that each of the 12,000+ current Usenet groups have a moderator in a U.S. jurisdiction....well, there are too many issues here to properly deal with in a short note. Third, if the moderator is liable for "allowing" inappropriate material to get through, I predict a rather severe shortage of moderators. It's already a thankless job, so why any sane person take on the liability of doing it? Fourth, the Soviets couldn't control the underground "samizdat" press, and this was when the sanctions were stronger and the channels of communicaton more available. Today, in the West, there are at least two orders of magnitude more channels, and several orders of magnitude more sites, bandwidth, etc. Fifth, major constitutional challenges would be mounted. The First Amendment says that a posting to a public discussion does not first have to be cleared by a censor/moderator! (I'm not saying a group cannot be moderated, I'm saying that making it a crime to have an unmoderated, uncensored group will not pass constitutional muster.) --Tim Boycott espionage-enabled software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: "This post is G-Rated"
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:06 AM 1/26/96 GMT, Jeff Williams wrote: >Maybe nobody would use the flag, but I don't see how it could hurt. If I had >kids, I would appreciate having the option of sorting out all the stuff that >is "NIFK" by the author. My concern about such a flag is that if it was implemented widely, it would be a small step from being optional to being mandatory. As things stand, were some legislature to adopt a "mandatory labelling" statute tomorrow, we'd end up with a complex and pointless mess of conflicting and incompatible attempts at compliance, rendering the labelling scheme effectively useless; and, likely, "industry" (e.g., the big service providers + AT&T & MCI & Sprint etc) would oppose the legislation on the grounds that compliance would take several years and complex design to bring about. So we'd get some sort of grace period to argue against it, prepare good test case(s), establish offshore mailing lists/servers, and so forth. But if we let the market do an efficient job of developing and deploying a labelling standard, over the course of the next few years, we're an afternoon's sorry debate and a few bought-and-paid-for committee meetings away from a market standard turning into a statutory duty. This makes me think that if development of a labelling standard is imminent, it's time to find ways to subvert it, misuse it, avoid it, and otherwise treat it like an enemy. It's not necessarily an enemy until it's coopted into service by a coercive force (be it big brother^h^h^h^h^h^h^hgovernment or big brother^h^h^h^h^h^h^hcorporation) but it's a potential threat. Are you sure that your relatively moderate "less NIFK material is a good thing" stance is a good reflection of others' positions? My impression is that many people are dissatisfied with anything less than a "zero tolerance" position re kids & porn or kids & drugs or kids & sexual choice or whatever. Your view of a partial-cooperation world isn't especially draconian, but do you really think that others will be as tolerant of other positions re labelling? -- "The anchored mind screwed into me by the psycho- | Greg Broiles lubricious thrust of heaven is the one that thinks | gbroiles(a)netbox.com every temptation, every desire, every inhibition." | -- Antonin Artaud |

1 0

Problem building PGP on NT
by Max Domeika 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, First question: Is this the appropriate place to go with this kind of question. If not, I apologize. Anyways here goes: I'm trying to build PGP, the MIT version under windows NT using Microsoft C++ version 4.0. The program builds after a few modifications to the makefile but cannot generate a RSA key. Everytime, I type pgp -kg and answer the required questions, pgp attempts to generate some primes and apparently fails. Anyone have a clue as to what the problem may be??? I know there is an executable of PGP for NT already made, I've used it. So I at least know it's possible to build on NT. Anyone else attempt a port to NT??? Thanks ahead of time, Max

1 0

9th Circuit addresses vicarious liability
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The 9th Circuit issued a ruling today in _Fonovisa v. Cherry Auction_ overturning an ED CA district court's ruling re vicarious liability for copyright and trademark infringement. If I remember correctly, the lower court's ruling was one of those relied upon by Judge Whyte in his recent _Netcom_ ruling. In any event, it looks like it's an important development in vicarious liability and thus liability for ISP's and remailers and other providers of electronic "space" or conduit. http://www.callaw.com/9415715.html -- "The anchored mind screwed into me by the psycho- | Greg Broiles lubricious thrust of heaven is the one that thinks | gbroiles(a)netbox.com every temptation, every desire, every inhibition." | -- Antonin Artaud |

1 0

Re: 9th Circuit addresses vicarious liability
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I wrote: > http://www.callaw.com/9415715.html > but it should have read: http://www.callaw.com/9415717.html -- "The anchored mind screwed into me by the psycho- | Greg Broiles lubricious thrust of heaven is the one that thinks | gbroiles(a)netbox.com every temptation, every desire, every inhibition." | -- Antonin Artaud |

1 0

Re: Microsoft's CryptoAPI - thoughts?
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:02 AM 1/26/96 -0500, you wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >rickt(a)psa.pencom.com writes: >> [Info can be found at: http://www.microsoft.com/intdev/inttech/cryptapi.htm] > >Has someone here managed to extract PostScript hardcopy of the CAPI from this >Web page? I tried earlier this evening and wound up with a miniature >ecological disaster on my hands. The page says: > >"For ease of online reading and printing, we've provided copies of this >lengthy document in Microsoft Word and Postscript formats." {Disaster story deleted] Ghostview seems to read it OK. I have not printed it yet. (I will do that tommorow.) It does seem to be missing any sort of Indexing information, which is not helpful... You may be able to use ghostscript to convert it to eps or something else useful to your printer. Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ National Security uber alles!

1 0