December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: FCC & Internet phones
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Adam Shostack wrote: > Loren James Rittle wrote: > | >Most > | >presumably use a mix of a UDP data connection and tcp for control > | >functions. > | > | OK, everything after the IP header is encrypted. I don't even know > | which protocol is in use. > > Are you willing to play Mallet? Drop IP packets, and look for > duplicates. Those are TCP. (IPSEC might handle this, but I bet there > will be broken implementations that save time by resending.) Are you saying UDP protocols don't retransmit un-acked packets? If not, then you can't be sure the duplicates are TCP. Gary - -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)kampai.euronet.nl> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06 - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMUVWwioZzwIn1bdtAQHQaAGA1EjYZpEKrie9t/eIohlrHCC4rUY8Dzu1 HgB+1ZbAS8X7hIRb3eSHLlBB13LZtkDH =4Tgg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

German minister predicts collapse of governments
by um＠c2.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

German Minister of Justice: Governments' attempts to regulate the internet on their own are nonsensical, technically and economically. National states are obsolete. A crypto ban cannot be enforced. The German news magazine DER SPIEGEL features a story about the internet, with 33 pages of the usual hype. However, there is a remarkable interview with the German Minister of Justice, Edzard Schmidt-Jortzig: The minister says that he is not glad about always having to talk about control when concerned with the internet. According to him, the internet has been getting on without any special laws. The discussion about pornography and blocking programs reminds him of the discussion about the "dangerous device TV" in his youth. The state has legitimate interests in regulations, he says, but it is "nonsensical, when those attempts are restricted to one country. The internet has no borders. What is illegal in one state will simply be served to the net elsewhere." He admits that in a way he is happy about that: "This whole discussion still is at its very beginning." Conceivably, providers could be obliged to block pages with illegal contents to their customers, Schmidt-Jortzig says. However, such a step, performed by the government on its own, would hardly make sense technically and economically: Instead of going through the exteme effort of controlling the contents, providers would simply move to countries such as Andorra, Liechtenstein or Luxemburg. That would only increase telephone bills for the customers, but Germany would lose many innovative businesses and jobs. Propaganda from overseas could only be avoided by a world-wide convention or UN treaty, but he does not expect any such things for the next 10 years. Facing the development of technology, "our thinking in national categories is no longer adequate. That way, we will not be able to control the net. I rather think that we will have to say good-bye to the idea of enforcing German law on the internet." Of course, Nazi propaganda or child pornography would remain illegal in Germany, but the question were if it can be enforced. "I can already imagine those users sending their paroles and pamphletes to the net from Luxemburg, deriding the helpless German authorities. I don't really think that is great, but I don't see any solution." "I think the internet with its unlimited possibilites of communication and its anarchistic structure is one of the most amazing challenges the state currently has to face. Faster than we would have thought, the traditional national state will prove obsolete. A legislation ending at the borders of a certain territory will be increasingly hard to defend." He knows that many will find it difficult to bear, says Schmidt-Jortzig, "but we cannot outlaw the internet only because it does not fit with the conception of life of some [people living in yesterday's world]. Not even the Chinese can." The idea of the global citizen in the internet, who no loger has to cope with national ideas, is a nice vision, he says, but still very unrealistic. For some time, national states would remain authoritative and defend their function. "But I am afraid that this stuggle will eventually fail." Schmidt-Jortzig says that the Bavarian prosecutors' proceed against CompuServe has been absolutely legitimate, but if they will be sentenced were a totally different question, because the accused had no way of verifying every internet resource. In a global community, there could be something like a net police. German controls however, would be totally senseless today: "If I really were to regulate the internet with laws and prohibition in spite of all argumentation, then I would certainly need such control, a new federal Data Police. But I think nobody would have such absurd an idea, as everyone knows that would also mean the death of this innovative business field in Germany." The state could not care for fully effective privacy on the net, but may have to inform about the threads towards privacy. Schmidt-Jortzig does not see any reason for banning encryption software the police cannot break: "Why should I outlaw that on this still rather insecure media, people encrypt their private mail, and be it only the results of the federal league." - "Even if I wanted to, I could hardly enforce that ban. You can download encryption programs for free on the internet. Meanwhile, there even is software that allows you to undetectibly hide a message in normal e-mail. The state is participating in a persuit race that it cannot win at all. Of course that does not exempt us from having to try to persue in the beginning." Asked about criminals using encryption, he says that he knows there will be large scepticism if the state gives up that quickly. "Only, I am afraid that those who work against this development will eventually have to lay down arms. Any attempt to find a national solution will fail."

1 0

DOT_con
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

3-12-96. TWP: "Making Connections With Dots To Decipher U.S. Spy Spending. Panel's Report Indirectly Discloses Details It Urged Keeping Secret." Buried in the commission's report is a chart that provides a striking account of previously secret spy spending and personnel levels for the CIA, NSA, DIA and NRO. The chart also confirms that the NSA, together with its various military service components employs the most people, a total of nearly 40,000 eavesdroppers and codebreakers. It appears to have an annual budget of around $3.7 billion. DOT_con

1 0

Re: FCC & Internet phones
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam Shostack wrote: > Gary Howland wrote: > | Are you saying UDP protocols don't retransmit un-acked packets? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > | If not, then you can't be sure the duplicates are TCP. > > Err, yes. Thats the point of UDP; its unreliable and has no > acknowweldgement. Sorry, I meant protocols using UDP, not UDP itself. Gary

1 0

Your "switchboard" listing
by Paul Kedrosky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ha! Very funny that you have yourself listed as Mssr Thomas Pynchon in Switchboard's listings. I especially like the mailing address. P.

1 0

Re: Cryptographers against cryptography
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com writes: >> This is the second in a regular series of postings to expose >> cryptographers and cypherpunks who are either lying to us or >> making a very serious mistake in there judgement. > >No, this is the umpteenth stupid anonymous denunciation of people who >deserve no such stupidity. > >You aren't fit to eat Bruce Schneier or Matt Blaze's toenail >clippings. > >Perry I frequently have a problem with Perry's proprietary and bumptious mother-hen approach to the c-punks list; in this specific instance, I applaud his sentiments. To Mr/Ms/Space Alien (anonymous): It would be nice if you had the decency to identify yourself, but in any case, please bugger off (and don't keep pulling out that Thorazine drip connected to your arm). --Dave Rose

1 0

Re: Leahy Bill a Move to Slow Crypto Exports as Much as Possible
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:34 AM 3/11/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >I was more thinking about "novel" applications: things related to digital >cash, remailers, information markets, etc. These are things which are at a >nascent stage, and nearly any of them can stalled for export by citing the >absence of comparable competitors in Europe and Asia. > >Hence my concern that the clause is effectively an excuse for delaying >crypto for as long as is practically possible. Not much of an improvement >over what we have now--though established companies will no doubt be happy >because they can export their fairly boring apps--and the new >criminalization of crypto (when connected with any of the other thousands >of felony-class crimes, such as swearing) is a step backward. > >--Tim May You're exactly correct, here, Tim. (I realize that you may not necessarily welcome an affirmation from me, but you are indeed right about your concerns.) I've chosen to not focus on the export aspects; I'm glad to see you are ably raising them as problems. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMUSWlfqHVDBboB2dAQE7SgQAo5lk3XrbgH9vUQjukZfKhzKTsE9c0pKb IRj9kzCirfJImb8MhxszevAm/ibGbgZssL2wX4u0osLZiClkwnh12gk39wNMeKuN K3GTHrzuuk6xKH5cseaHXJcCi1CuiL5bj0KQDDsJnMIgvrlQeE2RnmxLKlJH1ngO EO6ASNVSXto= =GepQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Cryptographers practicing law?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:28 PM 3/11/96 -0500, Perry E. Metzger wrote: > >anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com writes: >> This is the second in a regular series of postings to expose >> cryptographers and cypherpunks who are either lying to us or >> making a very serious mistake in there judgement. > >No, this is the umpteenth stupid anonymous denunciation of people who >deserve no such stupidity. > >You aren't fit to eat Bruce Schneier or Matt Blaze's toenail >clippings. >Perry While I don't really appreciate this guy's style and anonymity any more than you do, it's a misleading argument to try to challenge his position based on (presumably) his crypto expertise or lack of it. I don't doubt Schneier's or Blaze's commanding position in that limited area, but when it comes to the analysis of a bill affecting crypto, knowledge of the technical details of crypto is far less important than knowing how a prosecutor or court will interpret any given law. I'm an "expert" in neither field, but I knew enough to worry. Further, after having read Junger's preliminary analysis, it is blatantly obvious that this bill doesn't constitute much of a step forward, and in fact is likely a retrenchment if the government has its way. The "guarantees" the bill provides aren't really guarantees at all, they are "feel-good" conditional promises, and the whole thing is so shot full of holes that it's hard to imagine that it will provide any protection beyond what we have today. As I noted in my original comment to VTW (Mr. Safdar, who hasn't taken the trouble to contradict, let alone respond to my comments) my biggest fear is that the organizations and people who originally came out in mistaken favor of this bill either won't see their mistake, or won't admit seeing it if they do. (People are funny that way; they hesitate to admit it when they are clearly wrong; organizations are even worse on this score; tiny organizations are worse still, because they must "appear" to be externally consistent yet there are few "heads" to depend on to fix mistakes.) If anything, _MY_ mistake was in believing that the rest of the bill was acceptable if a single bad section was removed; I now believe (after seeing Junger's analysis, and a much more careful reading of the bill) that a serious re-write is mandatory. (In my own defense, I had only skimmed the rest of the bill once, I focussed my criticism on the one "killer" section that I could easily tell would be the most questionable item.) This fiasco does, indeed, raise serious questions about the motivations and credibility of those who have effectively endorsed this bill so soon: It is doubtful whether we will get any accurate picture about the bill from anybody who is afraid of changing his original assessment. I'd be just as willing to listen to "experts" quoted by the people who have (so far) expressed support for this bill. Maybe, as he himself suggests, Junger is a bit too pessimistic. On the other hand, Junger has clearly raised many questions whose answers depend almost completely on the INTENT of people within the government, not the wording of the bill itself. Since I believe their intent to be uniformly bad, it is hard to imagine how anyone could resurrect confidence in this bill to anyone who was similarly pessimistic. And the people who originally claimed that the Administration would oppose this bill as "going too far" cannot now turn around and claim that the government's intent was anything other than bad, BTW. We now see how little good this bill might do, and how much trouble it might allow the Feds to cause, so it's hard to imagine why anyone would have believed the bill (if passed) would not have been signed. I predict that the organizations that have, so far, "endorsed" this bill will quietly stop doing so, but without any kind of specific retraction or apology or explanation. I also believe that they will refuse to reveal whatever legal advice they originally received that induced them to endorse it, because they probably had none. At least Leahy's bill is DOA. However, I think it would be interesting and useful to do a re-write of this bill, addressing all of Junger's concerns, mine as well, and Tim May's to boot. I recommend that we totally ignore comments such as those by Padgett Peterson which claimed that certain provision "must" be included for the bill to pass. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Leahy and Mrs. Bemmis (now that's a subject line)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:24 AM 3/11/96 -0500, A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security wrote: >The Leahy bill is flawed in two areas. Sent a message with proposed wording >to Sen. Leahy via his web page but have not gotten a response. Have a bad >habit of reading laws without thought since this is how LEA and prosecutors >are told to enforce them - as written, not as believed. If an area is >vague, a court is required to decide how to interpret it, not LEA. If badly >written *everyone* loses. Unfortunately, this is not the way CREATIVE prosecutors enforce laws. _THEY_ try to be imaginative, "pushing the envelope" as it were, and expect the courts to stop them. Sadly, those same courts often have ex-prosecutors as judges, people who aren't particularly inclined to dissuade the abuse of laws. (exceptions exist, obviously.) >At the same time am pragmatic enough to accept the idea that it will have >no effect unless it passes and to be passed today it must have something >like the criminalization statement. I've occasionally seen statements like this, but the people who make these claims never seem to back them up with reasoned commentary, let alone facts, which would help to establish that this particular section is a "must" to any particular supporter, certainly not a substantial number of supporters of this bill. Even a quote or two from some political-type saying, "We need that section to pass this bill" would be better than nothing. I'm not suggesting this is totally implausible; merely that it would be lunacy to _assume_ that the bill "needs" this clause to pass, without more evidence or even opinion expressed by key people. It's almost as if you people have surrendered before the "fight" even has begun. _NOW_ do you understand why I'm so astonished at your reaction to this bill? Tim May would object to my use of the word, "Sheeple" here, but I think it fits absolutely. Anybody who would allow himself to be spoon-fed this _entire_, unrepaired bill _IS_ a "sheeple." Anyone who invents some requirement that this bad section be in place is WORSE. Furthermore, if any people (for example, Senators and Representatives) actually are willing to publicly stand up and insist on that section, then I'd say that's a cue for us to ask them some very hard questions. You seem to be unwilling to put them to their proof. I recommend that you stop living DOWN to your reputation, Padgett. > The goal here should not be to throw >it out since that would simply cause the whole bill to fail, Again, you do NOTHING to support this claim. How do you KNOW this to be true? And even with that knowledge, presuming you have it, why are you apparently not planning to use it to our best advantage? Why not try to "smoke out" some of the people who have conspired to include this section into the law? I'll bet they're hoping nobody questions them on their motivations! Moreover, does this comment indicate that you've had conversations or seen information that indicates that the presence of this part of the bill is necessary to its passage? And you're not TELLING US the details of that conversation or information? Suggesting that you're happy to sell the rest of us out? Hmmmmmm? Or are you just jumping to a conclusion? Padgett, the more you say the more you destroy your credibility. > but to word >it carefully enough that it satisfies those who reguire laws Huh?!? Who "require[s] laws"????????? _I_ certainly don't "require" this section to be there, and so far I haven't seen anyone on CP who _personally_ would insist on the presence of this section to condition his support the entire bill. Quite the opposite; most people express varying degrees of reservations about it. > while being narrow enough to avoid exploitation. IMNSHO the best way to do that is to >require that: >1) A felony occured (curiously misdemeanors were ommitted) > and >2) That the individual to be charged was an active participant (before, > during, or after the fact) The problem is, what is your definition of the words, "active participant"? And will YOUR definition actually be the one included in the law? I, on the other hand, see no reason to add crimes, since the implication above is that the person involved is ALREADY prosecutable in court. Why all this "piling on"? On the contrary, I believe it is absolutely certain that this clause will be used to prosecute people who are not otherwise prosecutable or convictable of any other crime. It's curious that you don't see that. > and >3) That encryption was used in furtherance. > >Note: that in the US (1) and (2) seem sufficient for a criminal charge to be >brought, so does (3) really add anything except words or possibly severity ? I sure wish you were better at answering your own questions... >Seizure seems to be a great concern of the group with the point of the >Bemmis Pontiac being brought up. For someone providing a free remailer, >that is a valid concern since the first question a court might ask is >"what was the motivation". I suspect that someone providing a remailer >and charging a reasonable fee to all who might want to use the service >might be in a much better position (not a lawyer so not allowed to know). Playing into their hands yet again, I see! Raising the price is merely a diluted form of banning, BTW. So far, people implement remailers because running them is a comparatively minor cost, and they feel that there is a need for those services. If there was some sort of de-facto rule that the operator had to charge for those services, this would complicate the use of anonymous remailers even more, deter their use even further, and achieve the government's ends just about as surely as a downright ban would do. In fact, accepting a fee might actually INCREASE the liability of the operator, not reduce it, because the remailer operator would have a financial stake in the use of his remailer. He could no longer argue that he did not "benefit" from the abuse (use) of that remailer. >One indicator might be easy to check: Has there ever been a seizure >involving a rental car (Hertz, Avis, etc.) and if so, what was the >disposition ? Well, given the fact that these auto-rental companies do billions of dollars of business each year and are known and "loved" by one and all, you could not use the (supposed) fact that no such incident occurred as some sort of positive sign. Any prosecutor is well aware that he may need a rental car some day, and angering a multi-billion dollar company is not something you do lightly. OTOH, if you discover that EVEN THESE organizations are liable for the transgressions of their renters, either civilly or criminally, that should give you fair warning that anyone smaller (especially an individual running a remailer) and less able to defend himself is certainly going to be a target eventually. Even a failed attempt to get a car rental company to be liable for something done by a renter is a sign that prosecutor was inclined to go after a big target, suggesting he wouldn't think twice before he tried to haul an individual into court. Do you think a person would operate a remailer if he thought it was likely he'd get prosecuted and have to pay thousands of dollars in legal bills, even if he were eventually acquitted? Remember, his legal bills won't be reimbursed by the government, though I believe they should be. Too bad you can't see this, huh? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Panorama of the Spy Industry
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.fas.org/pub/gen/fas/irp/overhead/index.html _________________________________________________________ FAS Project on Intelligence Reform _________________________________________________________ OVERHEAD THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY As part of our Intelligence Agency model homepage profiles of the components of the intelligence community, we are constructing a picture gallery of agency and contractor sites and buildings. These are derived from US Geological Survey and other aerial photographs. We obtained some of these initial test images from Los Alamos National Lab.

1 0