December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Bad news from Judge Richey
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:21 PM 3/25/96 -0800, Phil Karn wrote: >Last Friday, Judge Richey issued a 36-page opinion dismissing my suit >against the State Dept. > >I am waiting for a copy of the opinion, which should arrive in paper >form tomorrow. I'll post it on my web site when it's available in >electronic form. (http://www.qualcomm.com/people/pkarn/export) > >I'll be meeting my attorneys next Monday to plan an appeal strategy. I realize that this may appear to be a rather disrespectful tactic, but have you considered reminding the judge that if you are not allowed to profit by exporting encryption that the government doesn't want to see exported, you'll just have to make money in some other way, and this may lead you to talk to Jim Bell about implementing a program using encryption that doesn't _need_ to be exported...legally anyway. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

trouble with idea.c from cryptl99.zip
by Jack Mott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey, I downloaded the crypto lib 'cryptl99.zip' from one of the crypto web sites, I got IDEA.C to compile, but it doesn't seem to encrypt. The test code that comes with it shows the sub-key groupings, then it does this X 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Y 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Z 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 It looks like X should be the plaintext, Y the ciphertext, then Z the plaintext again from the code, but it isn't working. If anyone knows the source code I am talking about let me know what is wrong. Here is what the main piece looks like: printf("\n Encrypting %d bytes (%ld blocks)...", BLOCKS*16, BLOCKS); fflush(stdout); start = clock(); memcpy(YY, XX, 8); for (l = 0; l < BLOCKS; l++) ideaCipher(YY, YY, EK); /* repeated encryption */ memcpy(ZZ, YY, 8); for (l = 0; l < BLOCKS; l++) ideaCipher(ZZ, ZZ, DK); /* repeated decryption */ end = clock() - start; l = end / (CLOCKS_PER_SEC/1000) + 1; i = l/1000; j = l%1000; l = 4; // (16 * BLOCKS * (CLOCKS_PER_SEC/1000)) / (end/1000); printf("%d.%03d seconds = %ld bytes per second\n", i, j, l); printf("\nX %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u\n", XX[0], XX[1], XX[2], XX[3], XX[4], XX[5], XX[6], XX[7]); printf("\nY %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u\n", YY[0], YY[1], YY[2], YY[3], YY[4], YY[5], YY[6], YY[7]); printf("\nZ %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u %3u\n", ZZ[0], ZZ[1], ZZ[2], ZZ[3], ZZ[4], ZZ[5], ZZ[6], ZZ[7]); from this, Y should be encrypted, but it isn't! Thanks in advance for any help. -- thecrow(a)iconn.net "It can't rain all the time"

1 0

Re: Let's *NOT* "Raise their Awareness"
by Herb Sutter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 18:07 03.26.1996 -5:00, Michael C. Peponis wrote: >On Tue, 26 Mar 1996 , David K. Merriman wrote: >>Regrettably, I must disagree with Mr. May on the matter of speaking >>in whatever language one chooses. It seems that here in Texas >>(specifically, here in Amarillo), a local judge informed a Hispanic >>family that they were prohibited from speaking _only_ Spanish to >>their child at home. The rationale was that since English is the >>(ostensibly, in this area) Public Language of the school system here, >>failure to encourage use of English would adversely impact the >>child's education, and was thus a form of child abuse. If need be, I >>can provide excerpts from the local snoozepapers coverage of the >>issue. > >The judge is correct in this matter, most people view it from the >rights of the parents, but what about the child who, because of >his/her parents egotism and ignorance, grows up not being able to >compete effectivly? > >My rights, even parental rights, end when their exersize directly >impact someone else(the child) in a negative way. Gee, that's funny. I grew up in a household where we always spoke only German, and not only that but I had to write one page of German daily to keep my writing skills up; I was fluent in it at three. I grew up in a neighbourhood where we always spoke English; I was fluent in it at four. I grew up in a school system that offered me French immersion for about six years, so for several years most of my classes were in French only; I was fluent in it at fifteen. I now speak and write all three languages (though I'm most fluent in English and the French is rusty). I was born in Canada and have lived here all my life; I don't see the problem. PMFJI the middle of this, but assuming the above account wasn't taken out of context it seems awfully ludicrous to me. Just MHO, of course. I've never yet seen a child who can't pick up a language common in the area just by being around people who speak it... especially if it's the language used and taught in school! I have friends who've come from countries in Africa where there are many tribal groups in addition to the widely-used official French and English languages, and I was impressed when I saw these teenagers come over here already fluent in five or six languages... until I was told that's normal where they come from and everyone knows at least four just to get around from day to day. It boggles the mind to think that speaking one language at home exclusively would have any sort of impact on a child's development, AFAICS. To state a REALLY controversial opinion: I've always felt one reason many kids are so bored with school is that our school systems just plain don't challenge them, and I'm afraid I see the above as a perfect example of swaddling and coddling. Kids are amazing and are guaranteed to surprise you, when someone takes the time to work with them and set them achievable goals. If you'll excuse a European joke: "Q: What does a European call someone who speaks four languages? A: Gifted. Q: Three languages? A: Bright. Q: Two languages? A: Normal. Q: One language? A: American." :-) (No, this isn't a snub, it's just meant in good humour; it applies to a lot of us Canucks too even though we do have two official languages. Heck, I apply it to myself; my French is rusty, I haven't used it in over 12 years.) --- Herb P. Sutter Current Network Technologies Corp. Senior Architect, Distributed Computing 2655 Benedet, Mississauga ON Canada Cell 416-618-0184 Tel 416-805-9088 Fax 905-855-7194

1 0

More on ACTA petition to FCC urging regulation of the Internet
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As soon as we challenged the Communications Decency Act in Federal court, another threat to the Net has arisen. This one is a petition a group of long-distance companies has filed with the FCC, urging the commission to extend its jurisdiction to the Internet and regulate "the use of the Internet for providing telecommunications services." The America's Carrier's Telecommunications Association (ACTA) is whining about voice-over-the-Net, and equating the Internet to telephone and cable TV services. Some excerpts from the petition, filed by ACTA on March 4: ACTA submits that the providers of this software are telecommunications carriers and, as such, should be subject to FCC regulation like all telecommunications cations carriers. ACTA also submits that the FCC has the authority to regulate the Internet. [...] ACTA asks the Commission to institute rulemaking to govern the use of the Internet for providing telecommunications services. [...] ACTA submits that it is incumbent upon the Commission to exercise jurisdiction over the use of the Internet for unregulated interstate and international telecommunications services. As a first step, ACTA submits that the Commission may deem it appropriate to issue a declaratory ruling officially establishing its interest in and authority over interstate and international telecommunications services using the Internet. [...] Ignored, such unregulated operations will rapidly grow and create a far more significant and difficult to control "private" operational enclave of telecommunications providers and users. [...] The Commission should take the same action in 1996 with regard to the new technology of long distance calling via Internet as it did thirty years ago in 1966 with regard to the then-new technology of cable television: grant special relief to maintain the status quo so that it might carefully consider what rules are required to best protect the public interest and to carry out Its statutory duties. [...] Absent action by the Commission, the new technology could be used to circumvent restrictions traditionally found in tariffs concerning unlawful uses, such as gambling, obscenity, prostitution, drug traffic, and other illegal acts. (Note how ACTA not-too-subtly raises the spectre of the four horsemen!) The deadline to file comments with the FCC in response to the ACTA petition has been extended to May 8, 1996, the FCC announced yesterday in its Daily Digest. A relevant back fight-censorship message about the original petition is at: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/fight-censorship/dl?num=1876 For more information, check out: http://www.cais.net/cannon/acta.htm -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 20:46:24 -0500 From: Robert Cannon <cannon(a)cais.cais.com> To: Multiple recipients of list <cyberia-l(a)warthog.cc.wm.edu> Subject: ACTA Resource Page In conjunction with Henry Crawford, Craig Johnson, Andy Oram and other members of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), I have uploaded an "ACTA Petition Resource Page." It can be found at http://www.cais.net/cannon/acta.htm On that page I have posted the lively and informative discussion of ACTA from Cyberia-L (I was careful to search for anyone who did not give permission to have their message reposted - a comment usually found in people's signature - if you object to having your message posted, please let me know). There is also a draft of a comment by CPSR, an article from the American Reporter, the relevant Supreme Court case, and, of course, the petition itself. ************************************************************ Robert Cannon, Esq. | || Leashes! Online and Interactive | \ @@==+ We Dont Need No Telecommunications Law | ====== Stinkin' Leashes! Washington, D.C. | || || -Pancho Villa http://www.cais.net/cannon ************************************************************

1 0

SEC_oil
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3-26-96. WSJ: "SEC Says Brewery May Use Internet to Offer Its Stock." The episode is extraordinary in that it shows the power of the Internet to free companies from their traditional market limitations, says Spring Street President Andrew Klein, who says. "My phone's been ringing off the hook from companies that want to know how they can sell a piece of their companies to the public using this technology, without paying underwriters or brokers and without having to give the company away to venture capitalists." SEC_oil

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:06 PM 3/26/96 GMT, aba(a)atlas.ex.ac.uk wrote: > ie I would have thought that getting rid of ITAR would be beneficial > to internet commerce in general, and likely advance uptake of > electronic cash (by several years?) For whatever reasons (best known > to themselves) even big fish like netscape, and microsoft don't seem > to have any stomach for taking on the USG in any meaningful way over > the issue. If the Leahy bill got rid of ITAR, then that would be a very great advance. It is far from clear that it does get rid of ITAR. If it was interpreted in a reasonable manner, then indeed it would get rid of ITAR. But if ITAR was interpreted in a reasonable manner, then that also would get rid of ITAR --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

1 0

Re: Bad news from Judge Richey
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:16 PM 3/26/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >I read your article as essentially saying: > >"Judges ought to remember that a box of shells costs a lot less than an appeal." In a family law case a few years ago, (I am afraid I cannot give the citation) a man with a well known tendency to violence suffered some remarkably unjust decisions. Some people involved in these cases met violent deaths. Their cars exploded, etc. Suddenly it became impossible to enforce previous family court judgements against this man because judges refused to hear the case. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:26 PM 3/25/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 1:21 AM 3/26/96, jim bell wrote: >IANACS (I am not a Constitutional scholar), but it is clear that the >Constitution, being a relatively short document, is a _framework_, a kind >of "generator," for establishing additional legislation. This is, obviously >enough, why there is _legislative branch_, after all. > >Jim's argument (?) could be turned in all sorts of ways: "Your Honor, there >is nothing I can find in the Constitution that says I can't drive on the >left side of the road at 125 miles per hour." Indeed, there is nothing >laying out detailed traffic laws. And so on. OTOH, there is much precedent for being able to conclude that a long-established practice is simply unconstitutional. To name just a single example, suffragist Susan B. Anthony insisted in 1872 on the right to vote, arguing that the Constitution guaranteed all citizens that right, and women were citizens too. Both premises were correct; In hindsight, the issue was whether or not they were considered together or merely separately. Nevertheless, it took the 19th amendment passed in 1920 to "grant" this right to women. Although my MCP (male chauvenist pig) credentials are at least as good as most, but not only did she have a point, she was absolutely correct. Despite 80+ years of contrary history, nothing within the Constitution could be interpreted as excluding women from voting. It was merely the practice of the day to do so. That practice COULD HAVE been changed without itself violating the Constitution; at least in theory the 20th amendment wasn't necessary. The fact that an amendment was the way the practice was changed shows that people will attempt to use the Constitution to justify practices which can't genuinely be supported there. The lesson to be learned from this is that "our" government does some things entirely without regard to the wording of the Constitution, which may later be recognized as wrong by later, more civilized times. For an example that has not yet been legally recognized, the Constitution prohibits "involuntary servitude," but until a couple of decades ago the military draft was in force. Challenges to the draft on that basis have never been recognized, despite the fact that the draft is one of the most obvious examples of "involuntary servitude" that there is. >That the Fifth Amendment attempts to make it clear that a defendant shall >not be compelled to give testimony which may tend toincriminate himself >(lotsa gotchas, as expected) clearly--to me if not to Jim Bell--implies >that a "legal system" involving testimony, search warrants, subpoenas, >juries, verdicts, appeals, etc., is implied by various parts of the >Constitution. It is, however, far more strongly "implied" by current practice than by any black-letter Constitutional provisions. The difficulty is separating _Constitutional_ justification from "Well, that's the way we've always done it, so it MUST be okay!" It's too bad that many people can't see the difference. >(I could search one of the many online copies of the Big C for details, but >I'm sure you all, except perhaps Jim, get it.) > >I'm no apologist for Big Government, of course, so I think we have vastly >too many laws in the U.S. But I don't think naive arguments saying that a >court cannot call witnesses by due process because the Constitution does >not specifically have a clause saying this is the case is going to be very >helpful or persuasive. They just recently repealed the national 55 MPH speed limit. Even though it was repealed by law, in the same way it was passed, plenty of people have argued that the Federal government has no jurisdiction in this area. Those arguments are absolutely valid, even if they were ignored. The danger in giving the government implicit authority in areas not mentioned in the Constitution is that it is not clear how far such justification extends. If the government can limit us to 55, then why can't they limit us to 40-bit keys? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: About Triple DES ......
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:24 PM 3/26/96 -0600, you wrote: > Please let me know if TRIPLE DES is regulated by the same rules than >the others criptography systems in USA. > We want to use it here in National Autonomous University of Mexico, so >we don't want to get jailed. I don't know about Mexican law. US persons are not supposed to export it without government permission, but that's not very relevant. Mexican law may or may not restrict import or use of crypto; better check with someone local. (I haven't heard anything saying that it _does_ restrict it - I just don't know either way.) > In case we can use it somebody knows where can i get the source code ?? That part's easy - DES source is available on ftp.ox.ac.uk, and also on ftp.dsi.unimi.it and ftp.funet.fi. There may be specific triple-DES code there, but if not, triple DES is just Encrypt(Key1, Decrypt(Key2, Encrypt(Key3, Message))) so you can easily write a subroutine to do that. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 1995: Chat rooms, espresso, and Linux 1996: Exon, melatonin, and Java.

2 1

Black Unicorn attempts computer break in
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:58:14 +1100 Reply-To: Linux Servers mailing list <SERVER-LINUX(a)NETSPACE.ORG> Sender: Linux Servers mailing list <SERVER-LINUX(a)NETSPACE.ORG> From: Steve Gibson <steve(a)ARIES.INTERSPACE.COM.AU> Subject: Strange things afoot at my SMTP port... To: Multiple recipients of list SERVER-LINUX <SERVER-LINUX(a)NETSPACE.ORG> I just found these while going through my messages file... do I have any need to be concerned??? (unicorn.it.wsu.edu is now in my /etc/hosts.deny...) Mar 23 20:39:25 aries sendmail[7469]: setsender: "|/bin/mail rblack(a)unicorn.it.wsu.edu < /etc/passwd": invalid or unparseable, received from unicorn.it.wsu.edu [1 Mar 23 20:39:25 aries sendmail[7469]: UAA07469: from="|/bin/mail rblack(a)unicorn.it.wsu.edu < /etc/passwd", size=0, class=0, pri=0, nrcpts=0, proto=SMTP, relay=uni There were also attempts at connecting to my tftp port, although at the time, in.tftpd wasn't on the system (it is now, and is also in my hosts.deny to all except for local) Thanks... Interspace Australia Pty Ltd Steve Gibson - System Administrator <steve(a)interspace.com.au>

2 1