December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Boycott "Applied Cryptography" and AT&T and RSA
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:40 PM 3/6/96 -0800, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: >Bruce Schnier (Author of applied cryptography) and Matt Blaze (Who >is a crypto bigwig at at&t) have made it clear that they support >key escrow. Both have written letters in favor of the new crypto >law, it creates a key escrow system and also other restricts on >crypto. The letters are on the CDT homepage and i think were >posted here. They support a bill which is aimed at easing the restrictions for the uses of cryptography. Judging from what I have read from their positions, they view the bills as having more positive effects than negative effects. (Which may or may not be true...) >WHAT THE FUCK?????????????????????????????????????????? Sudden capslock stickage? >EFF, EPIC, VTW and almost everyone else (except for Bizdos at RSA, hmmmm) >have all come out against this piece of shit. But with these so called >experts baking it it could pass anyway. I think that you are infering evil intent where there is no evidence of same. The bill does have some major flaws, but it also has some major advantages. Being the cynic that I am, I think that the "use of crypto in a crime" provisions are a big negative. Others are not nearly as cynical however. >Maybe the ltrs are a forgery? We should ask them, and if this is true, LETS >SEND THEM A MESSAGE!!!!!!!! SWITCH YOUR PHONE SERVICE AND TELL AT&T WHY!!! >STOP RECOMMENDING APPLIED CRYPTO (THERE ARE EASIER BOOKS ANYWAY). DEMAND >THAT THESE PEOPLE STOP GIVING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posting in all caps will not help you convince people of the correctness of your position. Claiming conspiracys involving people who have better reputations for supporting crypto than yourself will not help either. If I were to charge people with complicity in conspiracy, yours would be one of the first in line. (Though a pretty lame one at that... Trying to smear people who have actual reputations with juvinile assertions and b1ff style postings is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the Cypherpunks(tm).) BTW, good luck in trying to boycott AT&T. They own alot more than you can imagine. "You Will! And the people to make you do it -- AT&T!" | Remember: Life is not always champagne. Sometimes it is REAL pain. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: Boycott "Applied Cryptography" and AT&T and RSA
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Bruce Schnier (Author of applied cryptography) and Matt Blaze (Who > is a crypto bigwig at at&t) have made it clear that they support > key escrow. Both have written letters in favor of the new crypto > law, it creates a key escrow system and also other restricts on > crypto. The letters are on the CDT homepage and i think were > posted here. > > WHAT THE FUCK?????????????????????????????????????????? > > EFF, EPIC, VTW and almost everyone else (except for Bizdos at RSA, hmmmm) > have all come out against this piece of shit. But with these so called > experts baking it it could pass anyway. > Put your 2 brain cells together and think for a minute. If you read the stuff - you can see that the bill talks about key-escrow, BUT you can escrow the key with yourself if you so desire. It also does not put up any mandates for key-escrow requirements in encryption systems. The bill also will force relaxation of the export restrictions. I hope - you could read and understand that 5 line "executive" summary. Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

Re: FCC & Internet phones
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:56 AM 3/10/96 -0500, "Harry S. Hawk" <habs(a)warwick.com> wrote: >> I wonder what exactly the FCC means by the term "Internet Phone." >> Does this just mean that software like IPhone will be regulated, or >> will this also apply >The thing is that at "best" the Iphone people (et al), are sell >Equipment!. NO ONE is SELLING phone service.. I mean Selling phone >service means some guy in NYC putting a sign on a store front offering >10 cents a minute calls "anyway where in the world." Maybe nobody is selling phone service, and the internet provider is selling packet-transfer service, but phone service _is_ being provided. One possible response would be for the FCC to require internet providers to block phone connections (highly unlikely; you could offer the service on any port you wanted, and I think one of the versions runs over IRC); another would be for them to block the sale of the software (tough to block sale of Israeli software, much less free software.) Bogus. #-- # 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: rhetorical trickery
by tomservo＠access.digex.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- An entity self-representing as "Vladimir Z. Nuri" writes: >sure, a government agent could insist, "well, don't be a bonehead. >it's obviously his diary, and surely contains all his crimes against >children". A standard attitude among LEOs is: "if you're not guilty of something, what are you hiding?" Skilled ones use this lever to get suspects to allow searches of their property on the flimsiest of pretenses. >ah yes, just as, obviously, even before trial, "the man is a criminal" "Innocent until proven guilty" is at best an abstraction to most police. Given the amount of time they have per case, on average, they're more interested in slorking up whatever evidence they can against a suspect and making a bust. Didn't Ed Meese say something along the lines of, "if they weren't criminals, they wouldn't be involved with the police"? ObCrypto: Having a fair amount of encrypted stuff around makes any given piece stand out less. A couple dozen PGP-encrypted files with names like "1994 1040 Schedule A" and "Business Contact List, 1Q 1995" is a hell of a lot less suspicious than a single encrypted file called "detonate.pgp." :^) Furthermore, if they don't believe me and I choose not to give them the plaintext, isn't that my Fifth Amendment right? Or has that been waived in cyberspace for our convenience? Scott -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQB1AwUBMUNUZuvEnOI8TfM9AQEzjwL/RC1kBe/R8aKru9z0PRFI8wwb+/qhMx8d UFrZ/VA36xDDKY48muwVA+rF+e0tIn3n006DvEBcwMNJ4LfQ15KaVssXjOlDoE0R mAp8umb/K6uK0bZ9+M4/qZe8e6by0VkW =CBfe -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

RE: rhetorical trickery
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Vladimir Z. Nuri[ please, will people stop sending me responses like the above? do you understand how the American legal system works? a person cannot be prosecuted without evidence. evidence cannot be illegally obtained. a person is not required to testify against oneself. these are all basic long-established cornerstones of our legal system. ................................................................................... Please, please, when Nuri-logical makes a public post, will people stop copying him in their responses? At least, not until you have read about the Clipper chip, the V-chip, key escrow, ITAR, the CDA, who those "four horsemen" are, etc., and understood how the American legal system works? Personally, I am really amazed at all the times when people point out basic liberties to the NSA or the law enforcement agencies, and somebody says, well yes BUT so-and-so hypothetical situation might arise. Why is there such deep fear about citizens? I'd say that some people there are high up on the list of creating a paranoia about life in the U.S. today. I t is almost as if some people have a public "prosecute you" wish. .. Blanc

1 0

No Subject
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

d 96-03-10 11:44:01 EST, you write: >Jim Bell wrote: > >> 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... > >I think the following is a tad better: > >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... I prefer this: 2804. [Deleted] Top that! Jonathan Wienke

1 0

How to get test messages to test your mail filters
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sending test messages to mailing lists of 500-1000 people just to test your mail filters is rude, and it's been happening a lot lately. On the other hand, building interesting mail filters is a reasonable cypherpunk topic - issues like reputation servers, email privacy, etc. are relevant technology, though this isn't mailpunx. So if you want to send us all a test message, it'd be nice if there were some description of the cool stuff you're implementing :-) On the other hand, if you just need someone other than yourself to send you mail, one useful technique is to send email to bogususer(a)wellknownmachine.com, for some value of wellknownmachine. Since most machines don't have a user named "bogususer", it'll bounce, unless of course it's running OS/2, which assumes that email for any address on the machine is targeted at the real user (or unless it's running an email system that doesn't implement bouncing...) At 01:40 AM 3/9/96 -0800, Bryan Koschmann <bryank(a)comtch.iea.com> wrote: >just a test to see if my filter works..sorry3 for any inconvenience > Gate|<eepeR (!-=Gate|<eepeR ruLeZ=-!) #-- # 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: PA
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim rote: >(By the way, I also figured out the anonymous markets for assassinations >bit, too, in 1988, and discussed it in detail then with Eric Drexler, Marc >Stiegler, Mark Miller, Robin Hanson, and others. Long enough ago that I have forgotten the citation, I read an even older SF story about explosive necklaces worn by politicians. If their electronic agreement percentage (and think this was in the sixties folks) dropped too low, a vacancy occured. Warmly, Padgett ps if you have strong principles, and stick by them, sooner or later you will manage to offend everyone.

1 0

Re: Cut the mystical artist crap. (No crypto relevance here)
by tbyfield＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:10 AM 3/11/96, Anonymous wrote: >Was it Thoreau who said "Consistency is the hobgoblin of >simpletons"? No, it was Emerson. And that's not what he said. >What the compromises have to do with are that one lives in >a society with rules, mores, laws. One of those touch-shit >facts of life. You can do what you want, but when it involves You seem to be rather fond of consistency. ;) Ted

2 1

Re: rhetorical trickery
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> all my respondents seem to be missing some basic points I have been > trying to make about law enforcement in the US. > > the law runs on proof, and evidence. a file with the name "diary.pgp" > is not incriminating. it is not evidence. no one could be prosecuted > as a criminal for having a diary. there is the presumption of innocence > unless there is evidence and proof to the contrary. A diary isn't illegal... but if you are suspected or even convicted of a crime, and there's reason to believe that a book or computer file is a diary and that you wrote about more crimes in the diary, then it's worth investigating. Just as if one is suspected of money laundering and it is known that that person has Swiss or Cayman Island bank accounts... having them doesn't mean one is guilty, but if there is other evidence that the crime took place then they are well within the realm of investigating. > furthermore, suppose > the "pedophile" is actually prosecuted successfully. does that mean > the diary was incriminating? no, it does not. in the CA case it happened [..] No. It's just another area of potential evidence. > that the pedophile was prosecuted without decrypting the diary. which > in fact argues in favor of the side that says, "cryptography is not > the end of law enforcement, and this case proves it." One can argue that, yes. In fact I remember some LE type who was pro-crypto who insisted the DT Bill was for lazy cops who didn't want to do the footwork necessary for an investigation. Another is when they cited the World Trade Ctr bombing... seems they already had a handle that it was in the works and did nothing anyway. DT or a crypto-ban or GAK would not have prevented that. [..] > now, a person might be successfully prosecuted for obstruction of > justice, or contempt of court, in refusing to hand over the > decrypted diary (but the other post I made about giving the federal > agents a key that decrypts the file to a cookie recipe handles this > quite nicely). And in some ways one has less rights when in contempt of court then when convicted of a felony.... [..] > please, will people stop sending me responses like the above? do you > understand how the American legal system works? a person cannot > be prosecuted without evidence. evidence cannot be illegally obtained. [..] Ideally, that is how the system works. But if they have a good reason to suspect something is evidence (and in the above pedaphile ase a file named "diary.pgp" would probably qualify) a warrant can be obtained. Note that just having PGP-encrypted files would not necessarily be evidence either. They pointed out a specific file with specific reasons why it should be examined. > a person is not required to testify against oneself. these are all > basic long-established cornerstones of our legal system. It's not clear in terms of court rulings whether handing over decryption keys is self-incrimination or not. From what I have heard, the courts do not view safe combinations as self-incriminating... > look, if someone WANTS to be put in jail for having encrypted files, > I'm sure you can probably figure out some way to pull it off. but > if you don't act like an idiot, such a thing is highly unlikely. it > clearly has not happened to date. Doesn't mean it won't... [..] > such deep fear around here about life in the US today? I'd say > that people here are high up on the list of creating the paranoia. > be careful what you fear, you might get it. Good point indeed. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." (Flames for an FDR quote from raving anti-socialists will be bounced to /dev/null.) 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