December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Ecash press release
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Comments: Authenticated sender is <paul(a)digicash.com> From: "Paul Dinnissen" <paul(a)digicash.com> Organization: DigiCash bv To: ecash(a)digicash.com Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 11:24:54 +1 Subject: Ecash press release Reply-to: paul(a)digicash.com Priority: normal Sender: owner-ecash(a)digicash.com Precedence: bulk Release date: Contact EUnet Amsterdam: Wednesday, March 13, 1996 Mr. Graham Wilson Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 623 3803 Fax: +31 20 662 4657 Contact DigiCash Amsterdam: email: media(a)EU.net Mr. Paul Dinnissen http://www.eu.net/ Tel: +31 20 665 2611 Fax: +31 20 665 1126 Contact Merita Bank Helsinki: email: press(a)digicash.com Mr. Timo Nikinmaa http://www.digicash.com/ Tel: +358 0 1654 2471 =============================================== Europeans Can Now Make Cash Purchases on the Information Superhighway =============================================== First European Electronic Cash System Opens for Business on the Internet Today EUnet, Europe's leading provider of Internet services, and DigiCash, the leading innovator in electronic payment technology, have launched a system that lets consumers make and receive payments over the Internet--using an electronic form of cash. The "ecash" technology gives even very small payments of a few cents the level of security once reserved exclusively for large-value wire transfers, while providing users with the familiar irrefutability, privacy, and person-to-person payment capability of paper money. The system is first being launched in Finland, the country with one of the highest number of Internet connections per person in the world. Merita, Finland's largest bank, already provides over 3,000,000 account holders with access to its Solo payment service. This now allows users to visit a "virtual ATM" on the World Wide Web, and withdraw money directly from their bank account into their ecash "purse". With this money they can make electronic payments to each other as well as to on-line merchants. The merchants already accepting ecash on launch day range from popular magazines and newspapers, to those selling stock quotes and GSM paging through email. Soon, while travelling anywhere in Europe, you will be able to dial a local number and pay for your Internet access, via EUnetTraveller, using ecash. Following a successful launch in Finland, EUnet, working with major banks, intends to roll out the service during 1996, in more of the 41 countries in which it operates. "We are delighted to be the first Internet Service Provider in the world to make the benefits of ecash fully available to Internet users" says Wim Vink, EUnet's Managing Director. "We see the ecash system as a major enabling technology that will make electronic commerce into an effective new way of doing business. Its simplicity and security features mean that users can make purchases electronically with confidence, convenience and privacy." "We are happy to contribute to the development of a variety of secure payment systems on the Internet," says Matti Karvonen, First Vice President of Merita Bank. "Electronic commerce is likely to increase as users are able to choose a payment system that suits them best. Merita has around 200,000 customers who already use terminals for their daily banking. We believe that the number will increase further with the introduction of ecash and Solo payments." "This launch and EUnetTraveller are really exciting new uses of ecash. As transaction costs drop, low-value payments will be catalytic to growth in electronic commerce" says Dr. David Chaum, the inventor of electronic cash and Managing Director of DigiCash. "This will let the unique advantages of ecash shine through: protecting the interest of society better than paper money, while helping people protect their own interests and enjoy the privacy and freedom they are accustomed to with cash." * * * (DigiCash and ecash are registered trademarks and should always be referred to as such) -- end -- DigiCash Background ------------------- Since beginning operation in April 1990, DigiCash's mission and primary activity has been to develop and license competitive payment techniques that show the true capability of technology to protect the interests of all participants. Dr. David Chaum, Managing Director of DigiCash, received his Ph.D. in Computer Science from the University of California at Berkeley, then taught at New York University Graduate School of Business Administration and at the University of California, and headed the Cryptography Group at CWI, the Dutch nationally-funded centre for research in mathematics and computer science, before taking his current position. He has published over 45 original technical articles on cryptography and also founded the International Association for Cryptologic Research. EUnet Background ---------------- EUnet is Europe's leading commercial Internet Service Provider, offering the full range of Internet Services, serving over 100,000 customers and over 750,000 users in 41 countries. EUnet, which manages its own dedicated network infrastructure, offers full local support services in each country of operation. Outside Europe, EUnet has developed an expanding network of national and regional service providers, with the aim of continually extending the services it offers to customers world-wide. Merita Bank Background ---------------------- Merita Bank Ltd was formed in June 1995 from the merger of the largest commercial banks in Finland, Union Bank of Finland Ltd and Kansaills-Osake-Pankki. In Finland, Merita provides a full range of finance, payment and asset-management services for households, companies and institutions. The retail bank serves some 3,000,000 personal customers and over 100,000 small and medium-sized businesses. At the end of September 1995, the total consolidated assets of the Merita Group stood at FIM 283 billion. Merita Bank's market share of total Finnish markka lending was 43.5 per cent, and its market share of total Finnish markka deposits was 43.3 per cent. The number of employees was 16,870. Companies That Welcome Ecash in Finland --------------------------------------- City Magazine -- City Magazine is the most popular magazine among Finland's 18-35 year-olds. With interviews, fashion, the latest trends, current affairs and local events, City's nationwide circulation is 225,000. Over the last eighteen months, City Magazine's online service, `Surf City', has grown to a consistent 30,000 hits per month. Now, when placing a classified ad in either the paper or the online magazine, customers will be welcome to pay with ecash SOM -- SOM, the Finnish Securities and Derivatives Exchange and Clearing House, established in 1987, serves as a neutral integrated securities and derivatives exchange and clearing house. SOM offers real-time financial market information on stocks, options and futures via the Internet, with invoices payable in ecash. Somtel for Windows -the application that offers real-time feed, as well as simulation and position-analysis functions-, is already available via leased line. "The use of money makes stock trading less complicated, with money acting as a practical intermediary between the transactions." states Asko Schrey, President of SOM. "However, since stock trades, as well as the shares themselves, are electronic nowadays, this conventional transmission of money has actually become a bottleneck and a threat to the development of the financial world. Therefore, SOM actively participates in projects to promote and improve the efficiency of payment traffic. We believe that electronic money will offer interesting new possibilities." Yomi Media -- Yomi Media Ltd., a part of KSP Phone Companies Group, offers solutions in the field of digital media, information networks and multimedia. Yomi Media has opened a virtual shop which sells phone accessories and other telecommunication-related products via the Internet. And they are pleased to accept ecash. Yomi Media will provide ecash transaction services for other companies in the near future. Finnish Keltainen Porssi -- Finland's third best-selling paper, Keltainen Porssi now accepts ecash payments. "Keltainen Porssi's business has two features that make ecash the perfect means of payment to us" explains Ari Ahola, CEO of Infosto Group. "Firstly the large number of transactions (some 500,000 weekly readers for the printed media) and secondly the low cost of each transaction. The large number of small transactions is most easily managed using DigiCash's ecash." Ahola concluded "Keltainen Porssi features some 80,000 classified ads per week in two printed issues. The advantages of Dynamic Database Publishing are very attractive in our type of media: The ability to crosscheck and analyse data, enter and browse the ads in real time are just a few of the new features which will be introduced in our Internet edition." added Ahola. MTV3 Internet -- MTV3 Finland is a nationwide commercial TV channel which, with 43% share of the audience, is by far the most popular TV channel in Finland. Since the autumn the MTV3 Web service (http://www.mtv3.fi/) has been developing a media that combines news and entertainment with the possibility to include advertising. With ecash it is now possible to do real-time shopping at the MTV3 Marketplace. MicroMedia -- MicroMedia is a private Finnish direct marketing service house specialized in business-to-business marketing. The Address File lists 300,000 Finnish decision makers at 135,000 offices. How does ecash work? -------------------- Using ecash is like using a virtual ATM (Automatic Teller Machine). When connecting to it over the Internet, you must first authenticate your ownership of the account, and then request the amount of ecash you want to withdraw. But instead of putting paper cash in your wallet, your software stores the digital cash it receives on the hard disk of your PC. When you want to make a payment, you simply confirm the amount and the payee (you can add a description of the items bought, or services wanted, if it is helpful) and then your ecash software transfers coins of the correct value from your PC direct to the payee. Merchants, (ranging from casual participants in the global Internet bazaar to mega-retailers), can deposit the digital coins they receive into their ecash accounts. Behind the user interface, your computer actually creates some 'serial' numbers for the electronic coins based on a random seed. Then it hides them in special encryption envelopes, sends them to the electronic bank for signature and, when they are returned, removes the envelopes while retaining the bank's validating digital signature on the 'serial' numbers. This way, when the bank (eventually) receives the coins you spend, it cannot recognize them as coming from any particular withdrawal because they were hidden from the bank by the envelopes during the withdrawal process. Therefore the bank cannot know when or where you used a shop, or what you bought. The number of each signed coin is unique, allowing the bank to be sure that it never accepts the same coin twice. In case you wish to identify the recipient of any of your payments, you may subsequently decide to reveal the unique coin number and use your ecash software to prove that you created it. How safe is ecash? ------------------ Security is fundamental to electronic cash. The cryptographic coding that protects every 5 cent ecash payment is the same as that routinely relied upon for authenticating requests to move huge sums between banks and even for national security. But in principle ecash goes beyond such communications security to achieve true multiparty security: no one (buyer, seller, bank) can cheat anyone else, no matter how they might modify their own software. Even if two parties collude, they cannot cheat the third. Replacing paper and coins with ecash would make life much harder for criminals. Because the payer's computer chooses the serial numbers of the coins, he or she can later irrefutably identify blackmarketeers, extortionists, and acceptors of bribes--were they to accept ecash. Paper notes, briefcases full of which can be passed from hand to hand without leaving any record, allow money laundering and tax evasion today. With ecash, however, all the amounts each person receives are known to their bank. Significant criminal activity could thus be thwarted by completely replacing paper money; moreover, the privacy of ecash would be essential to widespread acceptance of any electronic payment system. For more information on ecash please contact DigiCash. info(a)digicash.com, http://www.digicash.com/, fax: +31 20 6651126 +-----------------------------------------------------+ Join the new ecash mailing-list! Mail to ecash-request(a)digicash.com and type 'help' or 'subscribe' in the first line of your message +-----------------------------------------------------+ // Paul Dinnissen, DigiCash bv, http://www.digicash.com/ // Experience is what you get, when you don't get what you want --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0

Re: [noise] Re: Do you feel lucky, punk?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:03 AM 3/12/96 -0500, Gary Howland wrote: >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >Black Unicorn write: >> On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote: >> > Remember, one of the basic assumptions that any supporter of the Leahy bill >> > could be making is that it will be interpreted INTELLIGENTLY by courts. > >> Wrong. The assumption is that the rules of statuatory construction and a >> long history of weighing legislative history will be used in intrepreting >> the statute. > >Surely one of the basic assumptions of the supporter of any bill is that it >_will_ be interpreted intelligently? [Note - Jim is not saying this is the >_only_ assumption]. Exactly! >It's hard to make bills foolproof, since fools are so ingenious ... And hard-working, too!

1 0

Re: How's that again?
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jim and interested C'punks, In response to a Jim Bell post I wrote: > >Hey, Jim, don't forget me. You are the only person I have ever > >specifically UNinvited to one of my parties in over a decade of > >hosting same. I guess that makes you special. To which Jim replied: > You're confused. You're describe YOUR reaction to ME, not MY reaction to > YOU. And I am unaware of being invited to a "party," and now that I've > discovered what a sleazy person Alan Olsen and his merry band are, it is > really doubtful that I would have enjoyed what was advertised as a > cypherpunks meeting, but which you now claim was a "party." Your level of > "honesty" is showing. A) It is you who is confused (see below) B) I'm not Alan Olsen (nor a member of his merry band, so I have no idea what you are talking about. C) There was a Cypherpunk meeting followed by a party. The pictures are on the Web. D) It is your level of honesty that is showing. As can be seen from the two messages (below) I sent you at the time. They quote you in pertinent part. >From sandfort(a)crl10.crl.comTue Mar 12 19:04:00 1996 Date: Sat, 20 Jan 1996 22:59:47 -0800 (PST) From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl10.crl.com> To: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> Subject: Re: PARTY-PARTY-PARTY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jim, You wrote: > Putting the nearest city in the note would have been helpful. Did you try looking at the actual invitation? S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >From sandfort(a)crl12.crl.comTue Mar 12 19:04:17 1996 Date: Sun, 21 Jan 1996 08:24:26 -0800 (PST) From: Sandy Sandfort <sandfort(a)crl12.crl.com> To: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> Subject: Re: PARTY-PARTY-PARTY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jim, You moaned: > I didn't feel inclined to waste 2-3 minutes of my time cranking > up Netscape, and looking at a homepage or whereever the actual > information was. > > I consider such behavior exceedingly rude. I feel your pain. Invitation withdrawn; problem solved. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOW do you remember? S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Beat Remote Monitor Snooping?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:31 AM 3/13/96, JonWienke(a)aol.com wrote: >I know that monitors emit RF signals that can be detected and decoded for a >considerable distance. I have a question about this. Obviously, the >difference between black and white (white text on black background, or vice >versa) would be the most detectable, because the difference in signal levels >would be the greatest. Would it be possible to reduce or prevent this kind >of snooping by using color schemes that all use the same signal levels? For >example, the color purple uses the red and blue color guns, and yellow uses >the red and green color guns. Would purple text on a yellow background be >able to be read by a remote snooper? If not, then perhaps these color >schemes could be used to echo pass phrases--assuming the user isn't worried >about someone looking over their shoulder. Any comments? I encourage you or anyone else to do experiments on RF emissions (so-called van Eck radiation). I'm not being catty. If I had my old lab at Intel I'd surely answer this question for myself by doing some experiments. (As it is, it may be possible to do some reasonable experiments just with t.v.s tuned to pick up the emissions, radios tuned in, etc.). Some of you out there may actually have hands-on expertise, as opposed to first principles academic views. If so, you aren't speaking up. So, a good opportunity for one of you to become an actual expert in van Eck emissions, and the real or imagined risks of keyboard/CRT snooping from afar. (Personally, I'm not too worried. Easier ways to crack my security. Echoing a passphrase on a CRT is not really needed, and I'm not sure reasonably-available van Eck monitoring equipment can pick up keyboard-only signals. Again, some experiments would be useful.) If this actually is a real threat (and bear in mind there's a limit to how many vans can be positioned...), then of course some fixes are possible: use LCDs (where the RF emissions are orders of magnitude lower), use visual-metaphor passphrase selection (e.g., where one clicks on letters displayed on a color raster...unlikely that a monitor van can distinguish the region selected unless it can monitor the mouse signals), and so on. For the academic/theoretical point of view, Alta Vista shows a bunch of hits on "van Eck" (or "Van Eck"), including our own Cypherpunks archives. Also, some Usenet articles in sci.electronics, etc. But someone actually reporting to us what they've found with modern systems would be more interesting than rehashes of the old papers. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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: Multiple spinners as sources of entropy?
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-03-13 02:04:12 EST, you write: >Practically there may be less entropy from a couple of bits than from >several bits. I've done tests with keyboard sampling on DOS machines. >Especially when I've tried setting the system clock to a higher rate. >In one case the samples were 3/4 of the time even. > >It seems better to estimate the entropy based on how-often samples >occur (akin to arithmetic compression, only we're just counting bits) >and output hashed data. > >Of course, if the raw samples are predictable enough, that *is* a >problem. Depending on the source, how does one test if a method is >"truly" random? > >BTW, fast timing measurements from disk access seem to be pretty >good... Another thing to try is to take the low-order byte of 2 timer readings based on keystrokes (check the timer value when the key is pressed), flip one around (so bit 0 is exchanged with bit 7, bit 1 is exchanged with bit 6, etc.) and then XOR them together. This will minimize the skew of any individual bit. You could do this with sound card samples as well. Input noise into your sound card (seperate noise sources for the left and right channels) and take 16-bit samples. Take the low-order bytes of the left and right samples, flip one around, and XOR them together. Should be extremely random. For a cheap noise source, use 2 Walkmans, each tuned to a different FM station gap. Connect them to the line inputs of the sound card, and adjust the volume so they are almost, but not quite clipping. Whatever method is used, running the data through a good hash function breaks up any patterns even more. I am working on an RC4 mutation that allows random input and output to be processed continuously. It stores the S-box and the counters I and J in static variables that are preserved between calls, and uses a status parameter to determine whether to output a byte or input one. Email me if interested in details. Jonathan Wienke

1 0

Re: Why escrow? (was Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:39 AM 3/13/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >They may use secret sharing or splitting methods and handle parts by >different organizations within themselves and hand other parts to an >outside agent. Sometimes this makes sense when there are political >rivalries within an organization. They want the ability to get into >Dilbert's files if he drops dead, but they want an objective party to >hold part of the key so his rivals don't try to steal his files. Notice, however, how the government seems to be assuming that "key escrow" (to the extent that it is implemented at all!) gets implemented in a way which is "friendly" to government agents. They assume that there is one key that is available at one location, one that is well-marked and identified, unencrypted, and is available for pickup 24 hours per day assuming they present the proper credentials or court order. Even the most limited planning could easily develop a system that achieves all the benefits of escrow for the user, but is essentially impossible for government agents (or for that matter, anyone else!) to use to the detriment of the user.

1 0

Re: Why escrow? (was Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 13 Mar 96 at 15:27, jim bell wrote: [..] > That's why I'm more than a little > disturbed about the one really bad portion of the Leahy bill: The one that > makes using encryption to thwart an investigation a crime...... Same here. If crypto becomes commonplace in everything, one may not have a choice if one is in the midst of a crime. And what if the "crime" is planning a demonstration that say, interferes with some government activity? You don't want the COINTELPRO busybodies to know what you're planning, but when you're arrested it's another charge they can throw in. [..] > If I were trying to detect government investigation in such a situation, I > would buy a crypto phone, open an "escrow account" on a totally voluntary > basis, give them a phony key, and then (as part of the (presumably?) [..] Would it be legal to deceive an escrow agent? Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0

Re: RICO and remailers (brief treatment, if long)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:30 PM 3/13/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >0 >Several people expressed interest in a small treatment of seizure law >jurisprudence, and the Bennis case (seizure of an automobile used for >soliciting prostitution was upheld even where one of the owners knew >nothing about its use for a crime and which Mr. Bell has relied on >fairly heavily in pointing out that the Supreme Court has its "head >up its ass.") "Relied on"? Hell no! Not when I get the following text, from an anonymous source. Begin quotation: So he wants a cite of Supreme Court decisions from you bearing on legislative history & congressional intent, does he? I've attatched the relevant syllabus <summary> which is from the Supreme Court reporter & carries no legal weight, along with the UNANIMOUS decision in Neal written by Kennedy. It's an acid case, the Supreme court having ruled a long time ago in Chapmann that the ENTIRE weight of of LSD AND blotter paper, which usually contains 100mcg or 0.1mg of actual LSD-25 per dose, vs. the enormous weight of the paper. This entire weight of basically all paper has been used to give 21 year old 1st offenders 10 YEARS, which under current Federal Rules works out to about 8.5 years FLAT time in the joint. The original absurdity was challenged in Chapman but the SC blindly stuck to it's own reading of "mixture or substance", blindly ignoring reality & Congressional intent that "cuts" of drugs such as heroin or cocaine being an attempt to increase the amount sold & therefore profit, should be punished, while the LSD paper was merely a way to transport & distribute it. As far as congressional intent goes, Joseph Biden has said that as chairman of the senate judiciary committee, they gave little thought to LSD but they definitely did NOT mean weigh the whole blotter paper in handing out nickels & dimes. Now the US Sentencing Commission has changed the guidelines by changing the way the dosage is calculated to something reasonable, the SC refuses to make the change retroactive to help a lot of people. Note where Kennedy basically says that if Congress passees laws that are poorly worded & subject to create great unfairness in sentences, the SC, once they've made a stupid decision in interpretation will stick to it no matter how unfair it is in order to make congress write laws that are linguistically intelligible. This would be fine if those on the sharp end of them were congressmen. The more Supreme Cocksucker decisions I read like this, the better BOTH your big ideas sound. This & all recent other decisions of the 9 in-Justices are available at the below address. http://spoke.law.cornell.edu:8001/supct/opinionlist.1995.html Syllabus: NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus NEAL v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit No. 94-9088. Argued December 4, 1995-Decided January 22, 1996 When the District Court first sentenced petitioner Neal on two plea- bargained convictions involving possession of LSD with intent to distribute, the amount of LSD sold by a drug trafficker was deter- mined, under both the federal statute directing minimum sentences and the United States Sentencing Commission's Guidelines Manual, by the whole weight of the blotter paper or other carrier medium containing the drug. Because the combined weight of the blotter paper and LSD actually sold by Neal was 109.51 grams, the court ruled, among other things, that he was subject to 21 U. S. C. 841(b)(1)(A)(v), which imposes a 10-year mandatory minimum sen- tence on anyone convicted of trafficking in more than 10 grams of ``a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount'' of LSD. After the Commission revised the Guidelines' calculation method by instructing courts to give each dose of LSD on a carrier medium a constructive or presumed weight, Neal filed a motion to modify his sentence, contending that the weight of the LSD attributable to him under the amended Guidelines was only 4.58 grams, well short of 841(b)(1)(A)(v)'s 10-gram requirement, and that the Guidelines' presumptive-weight method controlled the mandatory minimum calculation. The District Court followed Chapman v. United States, 500 U. S. 453, 468, in holding, inter alia, that the actual weight of the blotter paper, with its absorbed LSD, was determinative of whether Neal crossed the 10-gram threshold and that the 10-year mandatory minimum sentence still applied to him notwithstanding the Guidelines. In affirming, the en banc Seventh Circuit agreed with the District Court that a dual system now prevails in calculat- ing LSD weights in cases like this. Held: Section 841(b)(1) directs a sentencing court to take into account the actual weight of the blotter paper with its absorbed LSD, even though the Sentencing Guidelines require a different method of calculating the weight of an LSD mixture or substance. The Court rejects petitioner's contentions that the revised Guidelines are entitled to deference as a construction of 841(b)(1) and that those Guidelines require reconsideration of the method used to determine statutory minimum sentences. While the Commission's expertise and the Guidelines' design may be of potential weight and relevance in other contexts, the Commission's choice of an alternative method- ology for weighing LSD does not alter Chapman's interpretation of the statute. In any event, stare decisis requires that the Court adhere to Chapman in the absence of intervening statutory changes casting doubt on the case's interpretation. It is doubtful that the Commission intended the Guidelines to displace Chapman's actual- weight method for statutory minimum sentences, since the Commis- sion's authoritative Guidelines commentary indicates that the new method is not an interpretation of the statute, but an independent calculation, and suggests that the statute controls if it conflicts with the Guidelines. Moreover, the Commission's dose-based method cannot be squared with Chapman. In these circumstances, this Court need not decide what, if any, deference is owed the Commis- sion in order to reject its contrary interpretation. Once the Court has determined a statute's meaning, it adheres to its ruling under stare decisis and assesses an agency's later interpretation of the statute against that settled law. It is the responsibility of Congress, not this Court, to change statutes that are thought to be unwise or unfair. Pp. 4-12. 46 F. 3d 1405, affirmed. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. end of anonymous quotation. JB. My commentary continues below: JB. Note the sentence above, "It is the responsibility of Congress, not this Court, to change statutes that are thought to be unwise or unfair." As far as I am aware, there is no _legal_ mechanism, short of impeachment (but how practical is that?), to remove a sitting SC justice, no matter how damaging his effect on the country by his decisions. Thus, I propose re-writing the above sentence a bit: "It is the responsibility of the citizenry, not Congress, to 'change' Supreme Court Justices that are thought to be unwise or unfair." Since that change can be accomplished if that 'Justice' dies or becomes disabled, (or retires, perhaps because he's in fear for his life) I think the answer to boneheaded decisions like the Bennis one is obvious. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 2

LACC: PC Phones Home?
by dch＠uriacc.uri.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Listers, I came across a blurb in the local paper today and was interested if someone here could provide some substance to the story: "Software to the rescue: If somoeone steals your PC, you may be able to get it back because of software that acts as a kind of tracking device. Home Office Computing magazine reports that the software CompuTrace TRS will automatically dial the office of its creator, Absolute Software, if a thief hooks up a stolen PC's modem to a phone line. The software reveals the location of the PC and Absolute Software will call the police" - Providence Journal-Bulletin - March 12, 1996. Any Comments? Regards, Dennis C. Hilliard, M.S. Director/Assistant Professor Rhode Island State Crime Laboratory 220 Fogarty Hall - URI 41 Lower College Road Kingston, RI 02881-0809 Voice: 401-792-2893; Fax: 401-792-2181 ********************************

1 0

The Leahy Bill is Rancid Sausage
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It is said that, as with sausage, one should never watch law being made. Well, the Leahy bill is rancid sausage. At 4:07 PM 3/13/96, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: >Looking for "good guys" in Washington is like Ronald Reagan looking >for "moderates" in Iran. On crypto, and on taxes, our interests >and their their interests are completely opposed. We should not >care about, or take any interest in, the slight difference between >the "moderate" and extremist members of the Senate and the House >of Representatives. > > >The best bill we can ever hope to get out of Washington is no >bill at all. I think this is true. The Leahy bill is so filled with caveats, qualifications, and references to "legitimate needs of law enforcement" that it appears to be _WORSE_ than what we now have, where there are currently few if any laws about domestic encryption. This is not a "Congress shall make no law" sort of bill. This does not in clear and unambiguous language say there shall be no restrictions on cryptography. Rather, it is more of a "We think crypto is pretty important, especially for our friends in business, provided it is not used by bad people, is not used to repress marginalized people of color, is not used to evade the taxes we covet so much in Washington, and provided that law enforcement's legitimate needs are satisfied" sort of bill. And it is likely to get even worse as the Administration starts whacking at it. (I'm exaggerating a bit, but the more I see of the Leahy bill and of the analyses done of it, the more concerned I get.) The last time the EFF pushed for repressive legislation--the Digital Telephony Act (aka The Wiretap Act)--it nearly finished them off (*). This time, the support of the EFF may truly finish them off. And the same may happen to the other lobbying groups if they support the Leahy bill. (* In the aftermath of Digital Telephony, it was explained by various EFF spokeswonks that EFF had little choice but to support DT, and that it had emerged stronger and more influential than ever. Right. Sure. Whatever. Shortly thereafter, various staff shakeups and departures occurred, the EFF pulled up stakes and moved to San Francisco, and is now but a shadow of its former self. Sorry if my views offend EFF founders, but I call 'em as I see 'em.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" 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