December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Imminent Death of Usenet Predicted
by Alan Pugh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>What if looking at a JPEG were like buying beer? The default is >that a 12 year old isn't going to fool the guy at 7-11, but if >their parents buy a beer and give it to 'em, what the heck? >Consuming alcohol is not regulated; *purchasing* it is. > >Don't forget: the fact that "porno on the net" (for instance) is >an issue *at all* is a *failure* of technology. It would be a >non-issue if USENET wasn't essentially a technology vacuum. indeed. and Who is doing the most to make sure that the technology necessary (strong widespread crypto) to make porno on the net a non-issue? if the governments of the world weren't such a bunch of collective paranoid pricks, i believe we'd be in the process of implementing global encryption on the internet and private networks as well. the public needs to be informed that thus 'failure of technology' is completely unnecessary. one of the things that _really_ pisses me off is that the very same people who are restricting the access of crypto technology are the ones who are screaming that they need to restrict other fundamental freedoms because of the their own stupid policies. writing this, it is obvious that their policy is entirely reasonable and in fact necessary if it is your fundamental goal to restrict freedom. i believe this to be the case when considering governments in general, and the u.s. govt. in particular. amp

1 0

enquiry
by Sean Gabb 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is anyone out there able to give me the e-mail address of Smith Micro Software, Inc 51 Columbia Aliso Veijo California 92656 I need to ask about some software written by them. Any help would leave me very grateful. Sean Gabb.

1 0

Encryption and Backups
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Something that I have not seen addressed is the need for strong encryption in backup software. Most backup software has an "encryption" option, but I have seen few that have anything resembling strong encryption. Furthermore, I have seen no real push for strong encryption for backups at all. I see this as a product that corporations should be demanding. It is difficult to walk off with a computer, but a dat tape can be slipped in a pocket with little notice. If it happens to be of a server or important system, valuable information would be in the hands of whoever could decrypt it. (And off site alot of resources could be thrown at decrypting the data.) Weak or no encryption of backups could be a potential problem with the security of a business. (Of course, if you leave tapes lying around, you are asking for trouble anyways...) Might be an idea for a product there... (And you can bet law enforcement would throw a hissy fit about its existence.) 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/ Is the operating system half NT or half full?

2 1

Re: THE JEWS (ALL of them!) Try to kick Ernst Zundel off Usenet!!
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:20 PM 2/4/96 +0000, Sean Gabb wrote: >What little I know about Mr Zundel convinces me that he's not the most >pleasant man to know. But really, these purported messages from him are >so grossly unlikely, they defeat their object. Why is it that so many people took those messages as _actually_ being from the real Mr. Zundel? The text is obviously a parody. I guess most of Usenet has been disconnected from any reliable clue server... 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/ Is the operating system half NT or half full?

1 0

Computer Law Observer
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: 29 Jan 1996 18:01:16 -0500 From: Galkin(a)aol.com Subject: The Computer Law Observer #16 ===================================== GENERAL INFO: The Computer Law Observer is distributed (usually) weekly for free and is prepared by William S. Galkin, Esq. The Observer is designed specifically for the non-lawyer. To subscribe, send e-mail to wgalkin(a)earthlink.com. All information contained in The Computer Law Observer is for the benefit of the recipients, and should not be relied on or considered as legal advice. Copyright 1996 by William S. Galkin. ===================================== ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Mr. Galkin is an attorney in private practice in Owings Mills, Maryland (which is a suburb of Baltimore). He is an adjunct professor of Computer Law at the University of Maryland School of Law and has concentrated his private practice in the Computer Law area since 1986. He represents small startup, midsized and large companies, across the U.S. and internationally, dealing with a wide range of legal issues associated with computers and technology, such as developing, marketing and protecting software, purchasing and selling complex computer systems, and launching and operating a variety of online business ventures. He also enjoys writing about computer law issues! ===> Mr. Galkin is available for consultation with individuals and companies, wherever located, and can be reached as follows: E-MAIL: wgalkin(a)earthlink.com/TELEPHONE: 410-356-8853/FAX: 410-356-8804/MAIL: 10451 Mill Run Circle, Suite 400, Owings Mills, Maryland 21117. Articles in The Observer are available to be published as columns in both print and electronic publications. Please contact Mr. Galkin for the terms of such usage. *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ ELECTRONIC PRIVACY RIGHTS AND POLICE POWER *+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+*+ [This is the third of a series of articles discussing privacy rights in the digital age.] It's no secret. Law enforcement agents are closely monitoring traffic on the Internet. It is also no secret that crime is proliferating on the Internet at a frightening pace. Law enforcement agents are a bit unnerved as they watch their tried and true methods of law enforcement become antiquated. However, law enforcement on the Internet is starting to come of age. Here are some recent examples: (1) The Secret Service set up a bogus bulletin board system for the purpose of attracting people who want to sell stolen cellular phone codes. Thieves often get these codes by using scanners which pick up the code-embedded signals emitted from moving cars. The result: six arrests and seizure of 20 computer systems. (2) The Justice Department ended a two-year investigation into use of America Online (AOL) for the distribution of child pornography and perpetration of other sex-crimes. The result: 125 homes were searched, computer systems seized and numerous arrests made across the country. (3) Just this month, the Secret Service noticed that Virtual Visions (http://www.vv.com/~gilmore/head/heads.html) put up a new web page which shows the heads of public figures such as Bob Dole, Boris Yeltsin and Bill Gates, slowly exploding. Virtual Visions intended this to be political satire. The result: the developer of the web page received a visit from the Secret Service. The Fourth Amendment - The objectives of law enforcement and of personal privacy are on a collision course on the Information Highway. Law enforcement personnel desire access to as much information as possible to conduct their investigations. Individuals want to restrict access to personal information. It is necessary to achieve a balance between effective law enforcement and personal privacy. How the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is interpreted will play a crucial role in determining where this balance is reached. The 4th Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court has defined a seizure of property as a "meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interest in that property." The concept of seizure of information differs dramatically from seizure of tangible property. Seizure of tangible property means that the owner has been deprived of the use and possession of the property. Whereas, when information is "seized" the owner may still have possession of the information. It is just that the information has been copied and is now also in the hands of someone else. It could be argued that under the Fourth Amendment no seizure occurs when digital information is merely copied. However, applying the analysis used to prohibit wiretapping (which has been defined as a seizure), seizure of information would also fall within the constitutional definition of seizure. In the information context, "seizure" should be interpreted as meaning being deprived of the ability to control the disclosure and dissemination of the information. This ability to control is the value of the possessory interest of information. The application of the term "search" in the digital environment is more complicated. An unlawful search requires as a prerequisite that (1) subjectively, the person in possession of the item searched had an actual expectation of privacy and (2) objectively, the person had an expectation of privacy. The subjective expectation of privacy element has been criticized, because in theory, it would be very easy for the government to eliminate any expectation of privacy by announcing that it will perform broad searches. However, in practice, the Supreme Court has focused on the objective requirement. On one end of the spectrum is data resident in a stand-alone computer. Here, there is certainly an objective expectation of privacy. On the other end of the spectrum lie the vast open areas of the Internet, such as web pages and newsgroups to which there can be no objective expectation of privacy. Accordingly, law enforcement agents are free to roam through these open areas, assemble records on who is participating in which groups, and what they are saying. For example, if the Secret Service wanted to assemble all the messages that you posted in newsgroups in the last year (the technology to perform this search available) in order to determine your political positions, this would not violate the Fourth Amendment. The middle ground is where the legal battles will be fought. This will primarily involve information that is in the possession of a third party, and is not readily accessible to the public. Under traditional constitutional analysis, where information is disclosed to a third party, the expectation of privacy is abandoned. For example, most state laws, and the federal Constitution, permit wiretapping if one party to the conversation consents. However, the scope of the abandonment will usually only apply to the amount of information needed by the recipient. For example, the telephone numbers you dial are disclosed to the phone company in order that the phone company can perform its service. Thereby, a person abandons the expectation regarding the number dialed. However, even though the content of telephone conversations is also given over to the phone company, this content is not needed for the phone company to perform its service. Therefore, the content of phone conversations retains the expectation of privacy. By analogy, this would also apply to e-mail messages maintained on a service provider's equipment. Information such as the senders' and recipients' addresses, the file sizes and times of transmissions are not private. But the content of the messages would be. In the workplace, an employer is not permitted to consent to a search of personal areas of an employee. For example, a desk draw that contains personal correspondence. By accepted convention, this is a private area. Private network directories which require a password to enter would probably also retain an expectation of privacy. However, in each case, a court will look at specific corporate policies to determine whether there is an objective expectation of privacy or whether the employee was informed that the employer may at any time without notice enter these pass-worded directories. Along these lines, since a court wants to determine the objective expectation of privacy, an agreement that an employer will not consent to a search would have no effect. What would be needed is an agreement that the employer will not access these private areas, which deprives the employer of the right to consent. When determining the objective expectation privacy, courts will have to balance the value of the particular privacy interest claimed against the level of the law enforcement interest. Only this month, America Online under subpoena turned over personal e-mail records relating to a criminal investigation where the murderer allegedly met the victim in an AOL chat room. AOL has been criticized for not challenging the subpoena. AOL's position is that if it receives a search warrant, it will comply. This case highlights the valid competing interests of both law enforcement and personal privacy.

1 0

Re: enquiry
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:11 PM 2/4/96, Sean Gabb wrote: >Is anyone out there able to give me the e-mail address of > > Smith Micro Software, Inc > 51 Columbia > Aliso Veijo > California 92656 > >I need to ask about some software written by them. Any help would leave >me very grateful. Use the Force, Luke! Smith Micro Software, Inc 51 Columbia Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Phones: Main - (714) 362-5800, Sales - (800) 964-7674, Technical Support - (714) 362-2350, Fax - (714) 362-2300, Automated Fax-On-Demand - (714) 362-2396, BBS: (714) 362-5822 EMail: CompuServe - 74431,1044; Internet - sales(a)smithmicro.com --Tim [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the Communications Decency Act] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and do em right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said. "Dad's getting old. I say we should do him." So the two daughters got him drunk and did him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got em pregnant....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he whacked off first....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

1 0

Re: Sometines ya just gotta nuke em-and nuke em again
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Since the only cryptographic relevance here is whether the US knew about Japan's current state, and that isn't actually relevant, I won't respond to the list further on this. I regard the dropping of the bomb as right because it saved American lives, no matter who you believe on how many. America was on the side of good in WWII, and the Japanese (as much as they fail to admit it publically, including to their schoolchildren) were on the evil one. This is the case for several reasons: First, the Japanese had allied themselves with the Nazis. Second, the Japanese had done definite wrongs in China and elsewhere. Third, the Japanese attacked the US first (and it doesn't matter whether the US knew about it beforehand). It also doesn't matter whether Truman et al were considering the effects on the Soviet Union. To use a current example, just because an ISP is paid doesn't mean that that ISP is wrong to keep on Neo-Nazi material. If you wish to continue this discussion; feel free to do so via private email. -Allen

1 0

Re: Our "New Order"
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 3 Feb 1996 11:30:48 -0700, David M. Rose wrote: >In view of the fact that our government seems bent on abrogating its >citizens' rights to free speech, has anyone done a survey indicating which >foreign countries have the best Net connections to the U.S. (excepting, of >course, Germany and possibly France)? >It may be expedient for Planned Parenthood and others whose points of view >differ somewhat from those approved under our "New Order"* to explore >alternatives in order to reach their constituencies. The law makes anyone accessing material lable... even if you connect to a foreign site where it's legal there, if it's banned in the US, you can still get screwed (in theory). Methinks the time is right for a "PGPScape" web browser. Rob.

1 0

Re: [CONSPIRACYPUNKS] RC2 Source Code - Legal Warning from RSADSI
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 03 Feb 1996 21:30:47 -0500, you wrote: >Anonymous writes: >> It is becoming obvious to anyone with two brain cells to rub >> together that RC4 and now RC2 have been deliberately released by RSA >> Data Security. >Anyone with more than two brain cells might feel otherwise, however. ...and if they look at the algorithm (public knowl now), they may trust it less. At least a few clumps of ganglia I have feel that way about the alleged RC2.

1 0

Jamming and privacy problem
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It looks like one non-political solution to this problem would be a gadget to jam the receiver so it can't activate the transponder or, alternately, receive the transponder's signal. Cryptographic relevance? They might start doing something tricky with frequencies, etcetera. -Allen =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Sat, 03 Feb 96 10:21:11 EST From: Computer Privacy Digest Moderator <comp-privacy(a)uwm.edu> To: Comp-privacy(a)uwm.edu Subject: Computer Privacy Digest V8#012 Computer Privacy Digest Sat, 03 Feb 96 Volume 8 : Issue: 012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 01 Feb 1996 19:25:04 -0800 (PST) From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Universal Tracking of Road Traffic I have here the most amazing document. It is a Request for Proposals (number 95-7, dated January 1996) from the State of California Air Resources Board (Research Division, 2020 L Street, Sacramento CA 95814) entitled "Incorporation of Radio Transponders into Vehicular On-Board Diagnostic Systems". The ARB wants someone to build transponders and receivers that allow computers to automatically poll cars to determine if their emissions systems are failing, in the process accumulating a database of the cars' locations on particular dates and times. According to the RFP, by 1996 new cars and light trucks in California are required to have onboard systems that illuminate a dashboard light if the emissions systems are malfunctioning. Since the appearance of this light does not ensure that the car's owner will get the emissions system fixed, the ARB is proposing that new cars and light trucks starting in the year 2000 (it doesn't say all of them, but it does say 1,000,000 of them) be required to include transponders that can broadcast the car's VIN number, the emissions system fault codes, the vehicle's location at the time of the query, and a status code. The receivers are supposed to be capable of automatically polling the "fleet" of cars equipped with transponders and storing in a database the following information: date and time of current and last query, VIN, status and fault codes, and "vehicle location (to the zip code level, and city)". The contractor also "shall produce a public service video documenting the system and explaining the concept and the benefits of such a transponder-assisted approach to enhancing the present I/M [Inspection and Maintenance] program." In case it's not clear, the ARB is envisioning a system under which cars sold in California will be required to incorporate a device ("no larger than a pack of cigarettes") that the state can use to track its whereabouts at all times. This plan poses a greater threat to individual privacy than automatic toll collection or any other plan currently under development for non-commercial transport informatics, so far as I know. Environmental concerns are real, and the air in Los Angeles is a crime, but plenty of means are available for alleviating air pollution without constructing the technological groundwork for an authoritarian society. -- Phil Agre ------------------------------ End of Computer Privacy Digest V8 #012 ******************************

1 0