December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Vexatious Litigants (was: SurfWatch)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: IN%"janzen(a)idacom.hp.com" "Martin Janzen" 9-MAR-1996 09:48:42.59 >>ObCrypto, sort of: What if the page were retrieved through an HTTP >>proxy which, unbeknownst to the author (and the filtering service/SW), >>deliberately removes or alters the PICS-Label or other rating >>information? Sure, you could probably write http://www.g-rated.com/. At least with movie ratings, the MPAA has trademarked the G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17 ratings so that producers can't self-rate their own movies (though they can self-rate them as X.) But you could delete the ratings. Presumably, almost nobody in Europe is going to add these silly Yankee rating labels to their web pages, except a few commercial content providers who want to sell advertising or services into markets that block un-rated web pages. So schoolkids behind rating-mandatory sites will have to ask their teachers why the "World-Wide-Web" is just American --- "It's got All 50 States, Johnny!" <Exonive deleted>! >> Must Web authors now add a digital signature to each page (including its rating >> info), to prevent tampering? Tamper-proofing is a far more general issue than just ratings. Most of the tampering today is either political protest (the see-your- favorite-web-pages-after-censorship site), quasi-silliness (the Great Web Canadianizer, eh?), or advertising addition from commercial sites or deletion from de-commercialization software. Imagine if your movie rating web page gets linked up by some studio-owned web site (www.disney.not/reviews/siskel+ebert/Rocky23 says "Two Thumbs Up!" "Rave!") Or your stock picking service gets arbitraged a bit on fast.make.money.com. Or the ExonOnLine webserver starts deleting all links to unrated pages from pages it serves. If you don't need it now, you'll need it soon enough. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

Re: Leahy's guillotine.
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Leahy et al.: > 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... <Exonive deleted>! Let's look at the word "willfully". Among other things, it implies knowledge; under US law, to be guilty you have to know you did something that you at least reasonably believe is an activity that you're not supposed to do. Yes, cops can send you email threatening to use your remailer for felonious purposes, but if you don't know they've actually done it, and you haven't agreed with them to provide your encryption services in support of their felonious action, you're not a willing participant. Especially if you've got the welcome banner on your remailer page saying "You may not use this email encryption service for thoughtcrime, violations of the verbal morality act, idea laundering, anti-abortion activism, or other felonious or Un-American activities." You're no more a willful participant than the guy who receives an unordered package of child pornography mailed by a postal inspector. Now, if they make this a felony, surely conspiracy to participate in such activities could eventually be made illegal, and if the DemoPublicrats get re-elected, it probably will be some day. But this law doesn't do that yet. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

Re: News on RSA vs. Cylink Injunctions and Patents
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:00 PM 3/9/96 -0500, Perry wrote: >> I'm curious, because in the past, as I understand things, RSA has >> said that the DH patent covers El Gamal. If RSA no longer considers >> DH to be a valid patent, that would mean El Gamal is not patent >> encumbered. >It all matters very little to me, as the patents expire next year. Yeah, but that's still a year and a half till they're gone. Having them gone now (for some relatively small value of "now") would be especially pleasant, because we can start totally ignoring them (except for the RSA and Schnorr patents) rather than mostly ignoring them. Unfortunately, the somebody-at-Siemens-in-Paderborn patent on using Diffie-Hellman with hashed shared secrets for authentication is (minimally) good until something like 1994+17, even though it's so obvious to the skilled practitioner that I thought of it independently myself. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

Explosives, Criminality, and Preemptive Action
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:06 AM 3/10/96, JonWienke(a)aol.com wrote: >Who says they were going to blow anything up? It is perfectly legit for >farms to have large quantities of fertilizer around--they use it all the >time. Same with diesel fuel--what are they supposed to run the tractors and >combines with? Dog piss? DUHHHH! As far as having the instructions for >mixing them to go boom, who the hell made that a crime? You could bust most >of the farmers in this country if you criminalize simultaneous posession of >fertilizer and diesel fuel. Did these people ever actually mix any of the >fert. and fuel together? Did they threaten to blow up anything? My personal belief, from the news reports I've read (which may be incorrect, of course), is that the ingredients were for use in a bomb, whether or not they'd ever have gone through with it or not. The ancillary items found (dozens of assault rifles, weapons manuals, patriot literature, crank, meth, etc.), and the stockpiling of ANFO precursors, suggests an Oklahoma City-type scenario. This is what I think was objective reality. Now, before certain readers go ballistic, start foaming about how TCMay and his Tentacles of Medusa are pawns of Bill and Hillary, not to mention spawn of Satan, etc., I'm not saying that what they did is criminal. Having the potential to build a bomb or other deadly gadget is not the same as actually building and using one. But should law enforcement have waited until the bomb was actually built? Or actually loaded onto a truck? Or actually placed in a target area? Or actually detonated? Mightn't it be argued that until the bomb actually explodes, no crime has occurred? (A fine line. A topic oft-debated in libertarian discussion talkathons: if you see your neighbor preparing what you think will ultimately endanger you or your neighbors, at what point are you justified in taking premptive action? Certain extremists argue that at no point prior to your own death, for example, has an "assault" occurred. Less extreme folks argue that the assault happens when your neighbor begins to turn his gun in your direction. And extremists at the other end believe that potentially dangerous objects must be taken away from people long before they could ever put them to use. Ergo, gun control, restrictions on bomb-making info/anfo, etc. I take a stance closer to the first example, though I feel no qualms about hitting first if I really think I'm about to be attacked.) The argument that because farmers can use these products that the use must have been an innocent use is a weak one. Anyone with any common sense can see what they were up to. Who's kidding whom? But, like I said, this may not be criminal. And courts routinely have to deal with "conspiracy" cases to decide just how real the conspiracy was. (I don't care for "conspiracy" charges...too much chance for abuse.) Certainly the folks in Oregon will not face much prosecution, as near as I can figure. The weapons charges may affect their parole (some of them are ex-cons). The drug amounts are small. And the ANFO precursors....not clear to me at all that having these is a violation of the laws about explosives, but maybe it is. >This whole situation is nothing more than jackbooted thugs getting a rush by >stomping on people. FTJBT Overly simplistic. Don't misunderstand me: I share your anger at Waco, Ruby Ridge, gun confiscation, tens of thousands of laws, high taxes, etc. But I doubt the Oregon bust was a bunch of Waco Warriors assaulting the compound with tanks and helicopters. --Tim May, probably just added to Jim Bell's list of people he plans to have killed 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: FCC Sets Comment Date for Internet Phone Call Rulemaking (fwd)
by Mutant Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Henry Huang wrote: > ------- Start of forwarded message ------- > From: "Neal J. Friedman" <njf(a)commlaw.com>[..] > > The FCC has acted with astonishing speed in setting a date for comments > the ACTA petition to regulate telephone calls via the Internet. It is > uncommon for rule making petitions to sit for weeks, months, even years > without action. ACTA filed its petition on March 6th and two days [..] Odd that I have yet to see this in any business news. Has it made the WSJ, NYT, Bloomberg or TWP? Also odd that the FCC could try to regulate it. Not much they can do if someone outside the US uses IPhone or the like. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMUDveCoZzwIn1bdtAQHRkQF/U9Ypd5hAkoY86fF8e4pW9HLtVVvrRTVz GqxrRoq12MRtfQZqtD5q0u7VY6gJgR3Y =T64o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

CRIMINAL LAW SEMINAR
by AFDA2＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Friday, April 19, 1996, the Association Of Federal Defense Attorneys (AFDA) will present a one-day seminar, "The Key Fundamentals of Federal Sentencing." The seminar will be held at the Los Angeles Airport Marriott Hotel, from 9:00 am to 4:30 pm. Fee: $125 for AFDA members; $175 for non-members. Handout materials will include case law outlines and the sentencing guidelines. This seminar is specially designed for state court attorneys who handle occasional federal cases, for new federal defense attorneys, and for those who want a primer on the mechanics of the federal guidelines. For the experienced federal practitioner, AFDA will present its Third Annual Seminar, "Federal Sentencing Updates & Strategies," in the fall of 1996. For more information, click the Reply button and send a brief email requesting a fax-flyer. Remember to include your fax number. The Association's email address is: AFDA2(a)AOL.com

1 0

Re: Paint Your Own Scarlet Letter (Was: Edited Edupage, 29 Feb 1996)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: lmccarth(a)cs.umass.edu >I couldn't resist the temptation. I rushed out and rated my home page >as evil incarnate, at least according to the SafeSurf rating system. No >innocent rugrats are gonna be learning anything about my work in crypto and >symbolic computation on the web ! I have noticed that they ask for one's URL on the page in question. This information gathering brings to mind the question of if they plan on also keeping some sort of database. While private rating efforst are not directly wrongful, given the circumstances involved they may be attempting to mandate some such (either directly or through lawsuits) via governmental pathways. >It's, uh, interesting to note that "homosexual themes" gets a whole >separate category from "heterosexual themes". :[ Quite. (Incidentally, that the CyberAngels are associated with SafeSurf, which has this distinction in their material also, gives the lie to many of the CyberAngels' claims). I am currently in the process of writing a response to this proposal, and will post the initial version to cypherpunks. >Here's the reply I received after filling out the SafeSurf web form. It looks >as though anyone can use the code below by sticking it in their HTML as >directed: They supposedly have the code in question copyrighted. I suspect that such an attempt will not be valid without changes to copyright laws, but I am not a lawyer. (It does not appear to me, at least, to have any degree of true and original creativity involved). -Allen

1 0

Vexatious Litigants (was: SurfWatch)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:38 AM 3/8/96, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 6:59 PM 3/7/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >>If SurfWatch can be sued for a "bad review," then Siskel and Ebert had >>better find a new line of work. > >As long as a reviewer corrects errors, as SurfWatch seems to be willing to >do, I think they are relativly suit-proof. If they don't, well - anyone >can be sued for anything. I'll let the lawyers comment on the possibility >of success. OK, OK, I did not stick enough qualifiers in my "If SurfWatch can be sued" point. I should have said, in gory detail, "If SurfWatch can be successfully sued and found liable," etc. It is true that "anyone can be sued for anything" in these BS. I can sue Bill for writing the post he wrote. However, such a suit would definitely never reach trial. My point was that "opinions" (such as movie reviews) are not "tortable" (don't know the legal name), unless specific inaccuracies can be demonstrated, and even then it is hard. Siskel and Ebert have undoubtedly destroyed the box office prospects of many a movie with their "thumbs down" diss of death, but I know of no successful (or even adjudicated) lawsuits on this basis. One of the few cases of a reviewer being successfully sued involved the Bose Corporation, maker of the once-trendy Bose 901 speakers. It seems that around 1970 or so, at the height of popularity of the 901s, one of the stereo mags, or maybe it was "Consumer Reports," ran a review of the 901s and (correctly) criticized them as being not worth the high price (and maybe a comment that Bose's "direct-reflecting" snake oil was just that). Bose sued, and the case dragged on for many years. I think Bose eventually won. Too bad. Opinions are opinions, and a free society has no business suppressing opinions by use of torts. (Another related area is the use of torts to halt public comment on controversial development plans. These are called "SLAPP" suits--"Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation." For example, where AT&T sues "the Cypherpunks" to shut them up about their anti-Clipper feelings. Some judges are awarding large damages to the groups hit with the SLAPP suits.) So, while it is technically true that "anyone can sue anyone else," having the case get to trial is a different thing. And the law actually means what it says, in some cases. The First Amendment, for example, will stop Bill from successfully suing me because he dislikes my use of the word "tortable." If he files some number of these frivolous suits, he may find himself on a list of "vexatious litigants" (one of my favorite phrases of all time!). --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: What's anyone know about Teledyne Electronic Technologies?
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Teledyne (TET) is out marketing a "new" crypto system as a competitor >against DES and what TET calls "linear" cryptosystems. They are claiming >a non-linear approach in which (as best I can tell) they are permuting >the s-boxes and using 4 bit/16 entry substitution tables. Dont trust it unless you are a good cryptanalyst and have a copy of the source code. Most commercial crypto products are crap. Jonathan Wienke

2 1

Re: Switchboard
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:05 PM 3/6/96 -0800, Steven Weller wrote: >Check out www.switchboard.com. From the blurb: > >find people ... I checked them out and the couldn't find my record. Since I have a listed telephone number, I can only assume that their records do not include GTE local service records or some other equally huge gap. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0