December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

MARCH BAY AREA MEETING
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, For the second (and last) time, the Bay Area Cypherpunks meeting will be held at the offices of Simple Access, fourth floor, 388 Market Street, San Francisco. The meeting will be from noon to 6pm (or so) on Saturday, 9 March. As of this notice, there is no agenda. (Funny, we never seem to be at a loss for words.) Street parking is scarce, garages are expensive; consider public transit. If anyone wants BART, CalTrain or bus information, let me know. Otherewise, here are driving instructions: PENINSULA --North on 101 (or 280 to 101) to Golden Gate/Bay Bridge fork. --Right on 80 (Bay Bridge, Oakland) to 4th St. exit. --Take 4th St. exit. --At the bottom of the ramp, go sort of straight (soft left) onto Bryant (parallel to 80, towards Bay). --Take Bryant about 4 blocks to Fremont. --Take Fremont about 5 blocks to Market. --Follow instructions under "END GAME," below. EAST BAY --Take 80, west across the Bay Bridge to Fremont exit. --Take exit and turn left on Fremont. --Take Fremont about 2.5 blocks to Market. --Follow "END GAME" instructions. END GAME --The building on the far-right corner is 388 Market. --Find a place to park. --Sign in at lobby desk. You are going to visit Simple Access on the 4th floor. --Take the elevator to 4 and follow the signs. --The phone number is: 415-296-2544. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: Jump Start ecash With IPhone
by clarissa_wong＠alpha.c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Shostack <adam(a)homeport.org> mentioned: > The big problem with this is that net phones can be subject to > delay & drop out, and I don't want to deal with that when I'm talking > on the phone. Adam, Yes, and that's good news. We can claim, while we are building up our infrastructure, that we have a low-quality service that cannot compete with the current LD carriers. Meanwhile, several companies and committed enthusiasts are solving IPhone's technological problems. Also, ATM and other high-bandwidth technologies that the LD carriers are deploying can bring them profits when IPhone users request the _fast_ Internet. But the real money is in the billing system. And an efficient, decentralized ecash infrastructure will change the world. A cheap telephone-to-telephone long distance and international voice service, which people do want to buy, could provide the cash flow to jump start it. CW

1 0

Re: Jump Start ecash With IPhone
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:37 AM 3/6/96 -0800, Jim McCoy wrote: > 2- The phone companies (actually ACTA, the telco lobby) petitioned > the FCC on Monday to regulate the Internet phone software > companies. > >IP phone systems themselves may need to move underground just to >escape regulation. OTOH, there is nothing to prevent people from >building their own systems once some free software is out there... That would be a super neat trick since the LD business is currently deregulated (and in fact was never a government monopoly) and the local loop is in the process of deregulation, and Vocaltec is in some senses an Israeli company anyway and need not have a presence in New Jersey if it doesn't want do. DCF

1 0

Re: Anonymous remailers and Leahy bill
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:06 PM 3/7/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote: >Do not agree with you. Do support your right to disagree though. > P.fla That's all this guy said. Here's my more verbose response. >Do not agree with you. You are _entitled_ to not "agree" with me. What you are NOT entitled to, however, is to have a government that violates my rights by attempting to restrict crypto and other freedoms, even if it is with the support of 51% of the Congress or 51% of the voters or 51% of the population. (or even substantially more.) If you actively support such a government, or even encourage such a government, you are doing what is analogous to "inciting a riot": You are guilty of inciting the government to take improper, illegal, unconstitutional, or simply immoral actions against me and others, and in my opinion if such actions are taken you enter into that conspiracy. You may be alarmed that I might consider you a criminal for just exercising your "free speech." (If you're not alarmed, you SHOULD be!) I myself would greatly prefer to live in a society where speech was totally free: There would be no laws against libel and slander, and you could "yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre" without the possibility of prosecution. (All the other potential customers will be home watching on tape rental, which will make what you can do in a theatre less significant.) But until we live in such a world, I consider that yelling "child porn!" or "terrorism!" or "drug smuggling" in "a crowded Congress" or _to_ "a crowded Congress" that's anxious to restrict our rights ever further, is an incitement to violate my rights. > Do support your right to disagree though. No, I don't think you do. You've done NOTHING to actually _support_ my right to disagree, except possibly waste a few bytes of information space on a message that you did not see fit to publicize. (I did, however.) Clearly, your "support" for my "right to disagree" is essentially non-existent. Jim Bell Klaatu Burada Nikto! -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMT866/qHVDBboB2dAQHqfAP9F1vYWiHVT67QXNXwuDWpR9n6THRL4S2W vJq256khHXs4pMawUiGitkovVEDSBM8Tc6t6NpgNbwEojZ40dF147gqq7iTLOrf0 TU4RrUvBKiRJbTXnJM6YdHL7gOHQtU5TqHRft3R9JAHR5zEpetUSIo7+uVbklqqd Du1cZlTbu68= =M+dV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: FCC and Internet telephones
by sawyer＠nextek.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> In a statement from Washington, the America's Carriers Telecommunication >Association says it "submits that it is incumbent upon the FCC to exercise >jurisdiction over the use of the Internet for unregulated interstate and >international telecommunications services." > "For example," adds the ACTA statement, "online service providers generally >charge users around $10 for five hours of access and then around $3 for each >additional hour. Five hours equals 300 minutes, divided by $10 is 3.3 >cents per >minute. The average residential long distance telephone call costs about 22 >cents per minute or seven times as much." It seems that once again, big business is trying to get in the way of progress and competition because they are afriad they are going to lose some money. It seems to me that the ACTA is upset because someone found a way to "do it cheaper" and the telco's stand to lose a lot of long distance dollars. So rather then using this technology and perhaps lowering LD rates, instead they seek to block out the technology from the public. I wonder what would happen if someone discovered an drastically cheaper alternative to gasoline, but it never made it main stream because the oil companies would go out of business. Seems like the same type of situation with the telco's. > Says ACTA, "Technology may once again be surpassing government's ability to >control its proper use. However, the misuse of the Internet as a way to >'by-pass' the traditional means of obtaining long distance service could >result in a significant reduction of the Internet's ability to transport >its ever >enlarging amount of data traffic." No, the technology is surpassing the telco's ability to provide low-cost communications. > Specifically, ACTA petitions the FCC to define the type of permissible >communications that may be effected over the Internet. Permissible communications? This sounds like something out of the CDA ... I say, just try and regulate it. I want to see the FCC try and monitor several million computer transmissions every day and see how well regulation works. Thomas J. Sawyer sawyer(a)nextek.com

1 0

jfjdjdf
by cmyk.warwick.com!not-for-mail＠warwick.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

fjhdgfh dfhjd

1 0

re: io.com & SurfWatch
by m5＠dev.tivoli.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, it turns out that (according to a nice person at SurfWatch who put up with the rant I mailed in and send back a denial rather quickly) io.com isn't actually blocked. At least, so they say. No comment on whether there's anything like the "25 complaints" policy. I don't own SurfWatch, but if anybody does and finds www.io.com blocked, I'll send in another rant. I wonder whether they've actually considered the liability situation in re: blocking sites that shouldn't be blocked? I mean, sure, they seem nice enough about setting things right (like with the Nynex sites whose url's had "xxx" in the paths), but it seems to this non-lawyer that a case could be made for damages inflicted by being known as a purveyor of filthy indecency for even a short while. ______c_____________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX * pain is inevitable m5(a)tivoli.com * m101(a)io.com * <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * suffering is optional

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Gov't run anon servers
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hal wrote: > However, if I were a computer-savvy law enforcement agent, and I wanted > to track messages through one of my remailers, I would try a > technological approach. I would first break the key for my remailer. > That is trivial. The passphrase is in PLAINTEXT in the script file > which runs the remailer!. It has to be. That is true of all automated > remailers. The passphrase could be kept in memory and entered every time the system is started. Gary

1 0

Re: Whut it sez
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:33 AM 3/6/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote: > >Note: downloaded from www.vtw.org so cannot guarentee correctness- > > "§2804. Unlawful use of encryption to obstruct justice" > "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, > impede, or prevent the communication of information in furtherance > to a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, > to an investigative or law enforcement officer shall-..." > >Interesting wording - sounds almost like if you impede the *commission* of >a felony, you is been had. Keyword would seem to be "willingly". You need to learn to read more carefully. The word they (according to VTW) used was "willfully," not "willingly." In any case, assuming they either never made the error you noticed, or they manage to correct it before the bill becomes law, they will have just outlawed the used of encrypted remailers, because: 1. They use encryption to hide the sender and/or the recipient of a note. 2. Any law-enforcement agency could get a "cooperative", computer-literate criminal to upload a message that might, arguably, be part of a larger criminal offense (but really wasn't; the purpose is simply to justify an investigation) . The encrypted remailer is then guilty of violation of this section, even if the underlying crime is never completed or even attempted. Remember, you can have a "criminal investigation" without having a crime. Or a "crime" can be fabricated at the appropriate time, just like they did to those operators of a California BBS, called from Oklahoma by the cops, and using a kid to turn the whole fraud into a crime. > Suspect they meant to say "...obstruct (etc) the investigation of a felony..." Probably. This section is their wish-list to Santa Claus. It's easy to make mistakes when you're excited about something. They're hoping you suckers will support the whole bill despite this booby-trap. You're the fish, the rest of the bill is the worm, and this section is the hook. Will you bite? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com Klaatu Burada Nikto -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMT4JOvqHVDBboB2dAQFgDQQAmWrTqEaFUC6eFH79cGLeSHXqrXxXb25H 79I+SHT1chhrDQjHYvlPlpovcv/ShyqJB47w8z9XfGTggGKp+WvFVk10du9iviFF GZRsNgkjtdEpattuw/tZpmCrWW+aOAtM0Ziw+cYQsGdDlbkdHZueJTuCjDwUndGm BARsyesyGzA= =kEFi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

test
by uunet!in2.uu.net!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!athos.itribe.net!logrus!page＠warwick.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test. d. -- Homo vult decipia; decipiatur. page(a)itribe.net

1 0