December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Cookie Crumbles
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wall Street Journal, February 14, 1996, p. B6. Internet Users Say They'd Rather Not Share Their 'Cookies' By Joan E. Rigdon Netscape Communications Corp., responding to complaints from consumers, said it will change its Internet browser software so customers can prevent on-line merchants from tracking their footsteps in cyberspace. The ruckus began Monday, when the Financial Times reported on a little-known feature in Netscape software called Cookies. Cookies helps merchants on the Internet's multimedia World Wide Web track what customers do in their stores, and how long they spend doing it. Cookies stores this data on the customer's own hard drive, (in a text file called "Cookies.txt" in the Netscape directory) . The next time the customer visits the merchant's store, the merchant can read about the customer's last visit, and serve up a version of the store that's tailored for the customer. Cookies won't show merchants what other stores the customer has visited. Net surfers have complained on-line about the feature, saying it's an invasion of privacy and that it ties up the resources of their own computers. Netscape, the Mountain View, Calif., maker of the No. 1 Internet browsing software, says it didn't think people might object to Cookies, since merchants can track a customer's footsteps even without Cookies, and few have complained about that. Product manager Jeff Treuhaft contends Cookies actually helps customers, because among other things, it allows customers to buy several things from different parts, or "pages," of an Internet store, and only pay once, instead of once at every page. Also, the Internet's standards board, called the Internet Engineering Task Force, has asked Netscape to propose Cookies as a standard for the Internet, Netscape said. Still, Netscape agreed to change the software. In future versions of Netscape, customers will have the choice of refusing to let a merchant lay down "a persistent Cookie," Mr. Treuhaft says, referring to Cookies that track customer movements for days, weeks or months, instead of just a single Internet session, as most do. "We want to give the user as much control as possible," Mr. Treuhaft says. [End] Still, be alert for invasive snoops and tracking analytics, not only by NSCP, but by all those invaders crying mea culpa, "you misjudge the goodness in our hearts, we did it for your own good, like all good parents. Trust us."

2 1

Another CDA Protest Idear
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To the message_fronter of the public majordomo lists I control (win95netbugs and win95netbugs-digest), I have temporarily added the following, as a way of limiting my liability: ############################################################################ ## WARNING: Any use of this mailing list in violation of section 502 of ## ## the Communications Decency Act of 1995 will immediately be referred to ## ## the appropriate authorities for prosecution. See http://www.eff.org/. ## ############################################################################ I will of course remove this notice, or maybe move it to the footer, after a couple messages go by with the notice prepended. No need to be *totally* obnoxious. I'll probably also post a notice that all submissions to comp.os.ms-windows.announce (I'm the new moderator) must comply with the CDA. Hmm, I haven't had time to put up a "submissions guidelines FAQ" yet. This could be fun, but I will keep it clean. - -rich llurch(a)networking.stanford.edu WARNING: Use of the above email address across international boundaries implies consent to monitoring by the National Security Agency and other lawfully recognized bodies. All domestic USA use of the above email address must also comply with the Communications Decency Act of 1995. Violations will be reported to the Federal authorities for prosecution. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSMFE43DXUbM57SdAQFyCQP9EPAgWF2xRLVyKYQww7xl92uK8kS/tFx6 4mUzkI2MhFTwfKCeEZvtmBzcGYhICDuJXZGGnHVNpaFSJKBJvRGfRazAMrcf1/Aq V8RHXqBA6OgFpHTAh90dpuB/azGcOsP5YN9lVe3t+bCnlivVXA0N71PXC82e/ORd 5DZnU/3LPo0= =esOC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

No Subject
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Something for Jim Bell and his ilk to think about: "If we could climb the highest steeple And look around at all the people, And shoot the ones not wholly good As we, like noble shooters, should, Why, then there'd be an only worry --- Who would be left to bury us?" - Walt Kelly

1 0

Re: Linux on the Mac
by Franklin Reynolds 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: cjs(a)netcom.com (cjs) >To: olbon(a)dynetics.com (Clay Olbon II) >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Re: Linux on the Mac >Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 07:26:42 -0800 (PST) >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >> In the latest PowerPC news it is reported that OSF is porting Linux >> to the Mac with the support of Apple. Apple has a web site - >> www.mklinux.apple.com that discusses this and has a link to the OSF >> site. In my book, this is a GoodThing(tm). Of course, being a huge >> fan of both the Mac and unix might put me in the minority ;-) > >They aren't *really* porting Linux to powermac. They're throwing a >little bit of paint on OSF/1 and hiding some stuff in libc. > >Looks to me like they are basicly trying to ca$h in on the Linux name >and reputation without contributing anything to the cause. > >I personally think that Linux International (they still around?) >should put out a counter press-release informing the public that the >Apple/OSF Linux shares only the name. > >Christopher *Sigh* OSF ported Linux to our microkernel which is derived from Mach 3.0 from CMU. And we have ported our kernel and the Linux server to PPC. Of course some of the functionality that is in Linux was replaced with micro-kernel functionality. That was the point. The Linux server implements the higher level OS functionality like the file system, process management, networking, signals, etc. The paper presented at the Conference on Freely Distributable Software describes some of the technical details. We have also ported OSF/1 to our microkernel. Both servers are layered on top of the same microkernel. Perhaps you are confusing the microkernel with the OSF/1 server? Anyway, you don't have to worry about getting any OSF/1 code. OSF/1 is licensed software. It is illegal to distribute it freely. Franklin Reynolds Open Software Foundation | phone # 617-621-7321 11 Cambridge Center | fax # 617-621-8696 Cambridge, MA 02142 | fdr(a)osf.org

2 1

A good cryptanalysis text?
by Sherry Mayo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Hi all > > A friend of mine is looking for a good introductory cryptanalysis > text. Does Schneier's book cover this in much depth or is it more > cryptography as the name implies. > > My friend is a computer networking admin who is trying to widen > his background knowledge of security related issues (this may > mean that a more computing oriented intro is more suitable). > > Thanks in advance for any suggestions. > > Sherry > >

2 1

Some thoughts on the Chinese Net
by Jon Lasser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Several people have posted to the list that the Chinese, censored, Internet will fail. Usually, the claim is that the censored network will fail mostly because of technical reasons, namely the inability of the Chinese government to censor everything. The other significant claim made was that the Chinese problem is "behind" the "firewall" leading into the country... Suggestions have been made that RSA is involved with China to implement this censorship. I would suggest that the Chinese solution to these problems is singular, and simple: the total inability to conduct any transaction anonymously. How can this occur? It takes two parts; one simple, one somewhat more difficult. The simple portion is a national (Chinese) database associating true names with key IDs. These keys will be usable only to sign documents, not to encrypt information, similar to the Federal DSS. The more complex portion (from my perspective, at any rate) is a modification of the standard TCP/IP protocol, requiring that each packet be signed by its originating user. This would require lots of software modification on the Chinese end, as well as a conversion process at the National firewall. (This is where the censorship takes place; the censors don't filter out unwanted information, they sign acceptable information. They then store a reference to the bit of information with a hash. If the hash checks out, they don't need to re-sign the data. This allows a ramp-up after a while to provide adequate quantities of information). The real question is who's going to design/implement this protocol? The answer is Western sofware companies which want to do business in China. RSA would obviously be called upon to design the protocol, as well as perhaps provide certain implementations of it. Another likely candidate is Microsoft, whose Windows OS has been declared a National Standard by China. It would hold obvious financial benifits for MS to develop a Chinese TCP/IP protocol for Windows. Any company which wants a monopoly in a country of > 1 billion people could probably get in on this deal. Now that all information has a recognizable source, dissidents in China can be arrested, and unacceptable information never makes it into the country. Can anybody say why this can't be implemented? Or why China wouldn't implement it? This is obviously a worst-case scenario, but one which appears, at least to me, to be technically feasable. I'd love to hear otherwise. Jon Lasser ---------- Jon Lasser (410)494-3072 - Obscenity is a crutch for jlasser(a)rwd.goucher.edu inarticulate motherfuckers. http://www.goucher.edu/~jlasser/ Finger for PGP key (1024/EC001E4D) - Fuck the CDA.

3 2

Re: Spin Control Alert (LI Newsday, 2/12/96)
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

jamesd(a)echeque.com: >> While the religious right clearly supported the push to regulate the >> internet, the main push seemed to me to come from the existing mass >> media, primarily the three big TV channels. At 02:09 PM 2/14/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >The religious right did not *support* the "push to regulate the >Internet" -- they drafted, defended, and pushed through the damn CDA! Bunkum Name this Christian rightist who drafted or defended the CDA! The primary anti porn activists involved in the effort to regulate the net were Donna Reed, and Marty Rimm, neither of whom are members of the Christian right, and Bill Arms, who is not only not a member of the Christian right, but who in additon is a PC academic. While their campaigns received assistance, encouragement, and free labor from the Christian right, it was not the Christian right that enabled these people to exercise the disproportionate power and influence that they did. It was not the Christian right that obtained totally undeserved publicity for Rimm's spurious findings. Rimm's study had connections both with the right and the left, but the real question is where the big muscle came from. If the big muscle came from the Christian right they would have let us know by now, because they always tend to exaggerate their influence and power. While the effort to regulate the net had *links* to the Christian right, it is simply untrue to say that it was composed of the Christian right, or even to say that the Christian right played a significant role in the effort. Their role is scarcely visible. They were minor foot soldiers. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Re: Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:28 AM 2/9/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >Look, the reason we hate the CDA is because it restricts speech. >Restrictions on credit agencies gossiping about you are also speech >restrictions. If you are out in the world, people are going to talk about >you. The credit agencies are much easier to handle and less intrusive than >the women were who talked about you while beating cloth on the rocks in the >stream back in the old village. Recall that in 1914 America adopted the "Gossiping and Busybodies Fair Reporting Act," requiring all gossipers and busybodies to register their planned speech acts with the typically-named Privacy Ombudsman (now Ombudsperson). The modest registration fee of $75, a lot of money in 1914 of course, appears to have had a chilling effect on this market, as there are few if any gossiping women beating clothes on rocks at the stream. More seriously, what I find useful when thinking "There ought to be a law!" thoughts is to imagine how it might be enforced against _me_. Creative visualization. For example, while I get angry at times with TRW and TransUnion like everyone else, I imagine a welter of laws about the keeping of records and I imagine someone coming to *my* door and announcing that he was there to inspect the contents of my hard drives to determine if I had unlicensed data. (Tim Philp's idea that this would only apply to "corporations" or "businesses" (not clear which he means) misses the point. Am I, for example, a business? Having such laws kick in at some well-defined threshold would simply shift the nature of the information-gatherers...for example, they's subcontract out the record-keeping to a raft of smaller, linked entities. Then you'd have to prosecute people and companies for accessing illegal data banks, etc.) I am willing to support a few laws, about murder, theft, rape, etc., but not busybody laws trying to control what information people collect. If someone asks what the relevance to this list is of this issue, then they really are as dumb as dirt, and as dumb as endangered dirt, too. --Tim May 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."

2 1

I've just unsubscribed from cypherpunks
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Normally, when people post notices proclaiming "Jim, I'm putting you in my killfile" or "I can't take it, you've ruined this list, I'm leaving!" I think it's among the worst kind of petty egotism. (To date myself, Chuq's old "goodbye" postings are still the pinnacle of this for me.) It makes me very uncomfortable to write the Subject line, but it is clear and to the point; it makes things easier for would-be readers to decide what to do. And who said writing is supposed to be asy, anyway? :) Pot, kettle, guilty as charged, I suppose. In my defense, however, I want to explain that I've had many public exchanges with people on this list, and this seems the most effective way to let them know that they will now have to send me email directly. In particular, if anyone has a rational reply to my MS CAPI export issue, please Cc me. Later, /r$

2 2

Carrying the Bible an Offense?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:41 PM 2/14/96, Sten Drescher wrote: >"Declan B. McCullagh" <declan+(a)CMU.EDU> said: > >DBM> (I assume your Bible argument is just posturing. No >DBM> U.S. Attorney, political appointees they, ever will prosecute >DBM> someone who puts the complete text of the King James Bible >DBM> online.) > > You assume wrong. While I certainly agree that no >U.S. Attorney would voluntarily prosecute such a case, what happens >when an athiest files charges against someone for carrying the Bible? >IANAL, but couldn't the U.S. Attorney be forced to prosecute? I'm also not a lawyer, but no prosecution is possible in this situation. Not in this country. A case must be presented to a grand jury (remember the Zimmermann case?) and no grand jury in the United States would do this. There are two further points which need clearing up: 1. Private citizens (the atheist in this case) do not file criminal charges. They may swear out a complaint ("I witnessed John Doe carrying a Bible"), but they do not file criminal charges. 2. The "carrying of a Bible" is not covered by the CDA. No prosecutor can be "forced" to prosecute, absent approval by a grand jury. (And if a prosecutor doesn't want to indict a ham sandwich, it won't be indicted.) --Tim May [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 fuck them 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 fuck him." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them 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 pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

4 3