December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "Just say 'No' to key escrow."
by Graham Toal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

: From: "Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)netcom.com> : Paul Robichaux writes: : > No doubt. But what does the OS provider gain from including encryption : > in the OS? At present, customers aren't demanding it. Why add SKE at : > all when no one's asking for it? : Ah, the exact question for us to be asking! "Why add SKE at all when : no one's asking for it?" Indeed. : Why the upcoming conference on key escrow? Why the representatives : from Germany, Netherlands, France, etc.? Because, as I mentioned before but I don't think people understood the significance, Bill Gates is attempting to create a worldwide network of about a hundred satellites. You don't get to do that without political assistance, and no way is the USG going to let Bill put those birds up unless they control the technology to snoop on the entire net. Putting SKE in all microsoft products is doubtless one (though unlikely all) of the quid pro quos of getting a licence to put up the sky-based comms network. G

3 3

New remailer up at: usura@hacktic.nl
by usura＠vox.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi C'punx, There is another remailer operational in The Netherlands. It operates from my usura(a)hacktic.nl account, and it is an 'on-line' remailer as oposed to my UUCP remailers at vox.hacktic.nl . For more information send some email To: usura(a)hacktic.nl Subject: remailer-help Or finger usura(a)hacktic.nl for the remailers PGPkey. UsE Wisely .. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 for VoX Labz. iQCVAgUBLjpxS1nfdBSNVpE9AQHdwgP/YEMVzaPmgSK5/neizS+XxAtG8//Hbpmw G3b0WJ3JLCSmlbsP4eyS70vOn7V0kdLEoht5yJL4VnMF0J6L8elxLfU8wDxMofKj z7tRCdfVZru2Xcao5FbIEm8L+nFrDF3CPv+Wo3YrHeJEh4kghw0fCsPdlSqilWDz uCF0JDGMhnk= =3UmU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- EnJoY .. -- Exit! Stage Left. Alex de Joode <usura(a)vox.hacktic.nl>

1 0

Re: FW: No SKE in Daytona and other goodies
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Paul Robichaux The same way companies have been made to commit not to kill dolphins, or test products on animals, or give to Planned Parenthood: organized public pressure, combined with threatened or actual negative publicity. .......................................... You could also, like the Luddites, pressure the inventors of computers not to make any more of these new-fangled, fearsome things. Because you just *know* what they'll be used for, once they develop some database "features" and make it possible to send messages anonymously. Blanc (And, for clarity, I'm reminded that I ought to put a disclaimer in my signature about my address: I don't any express any "official" opinions from Microsoft; I just like to argue on cypherpunks.)

2 1

AA BBS sysops found guilty
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The list is currently discussing use end-point filtering vs source-point filtering vs total Net-filtering to control access to various Net-material. Well... I read in the paper today that the sysops who run the AA BBS were found guilty of distributing pornography. For those of you who are not familiar with the case, the AA BBS is an adult BBS residing in California. A Memphis TN postal inspector signed on to the BBS under a false name and downloaded erotic material to his computer in Tennessee. For various reasons I cannot fathom, the Californian sysops were dragged into a Tennessee count, tried by a Tennessee jury, and found guilty. It is my understanding that the AA BBS sysops try to verify the "adultness" of their subscribers. It didn't help them in this case. "Adultness" wasn't the issue. "Accessible from Tennessee" was the issue. It seems that the stuff on the AA BBS was legal for California, but considered illegal pornography in Tennessee. What I wonder is why the postal inspector wasn't charged with anything (well, actually I don't wonder, the question is rhetorical). Unless I'm wrong, it was the postal inspector's actions that caused the erotic material to be downloaded from California to Tennessee. All the BBS sysops did was make the stuff available via a dialup BBS. It's not as if the BBS sysops personally took the time and effort to physically mail the stuff to Tennessee. Is it valid to call an end-point initiated download an "act of distribution" on the part of the BBS operators? Apparently it does. What is the point I'm trying make? Well, the list is currently discussing the benefits of end-point filtering to keep "bad stuff" from getting into "good homes". Of course, this implies the "bad stuff" is out there somewhere waiting to be downloaded. If this Tennessee verdict holds, just putting "bad stuff" stuff out there will become a crime, regardless of where in the US you put it. "If you upload it, they will come! (and get you)" I'm hoping this case will get overturned on appeal to the US Supreme Court. However, even that could be a mixed blessing depending on the wording of the SC decision. At best, the SC decision could include language says that persons downloading information are responsible for ensuring that the material is not in violation of local laws. At worst, the SC could say that the operators of information systems are responsible for insuring material is not made available to persons in certain regions, if the material violates laws in those regions. In either case, there is an implied assumption that the material is somehow conveniently rated and/or categorized. This sets the stage for government sponsored rating systems, and the bureaucracies to enforce them. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Suggestion...
by L. Todd Masco 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Julf, why don't you give out random ID numbers rather than sequential? It wouldn't have stopped this attack, but it is a little more secure. -- L. Todd Masco | Bibliobytes books on computer, on any UNIX host with e-mail cactus(a)bb.com | "Information wants to be free, but authors want to be paid."

1 0

Re: No SKE in Daytona and other goodies
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 15:16:47 -0400 (EDT) > From: Aron Freed <s009amf(a)discover.wright.edu> > > What is the difference if a big company subjects its employees to a > key-escrow system or if the government does it with the people. If you > think about it, the government could coerce the company into reading > through information being passed back and forth.... [ good replies by Eric Weaver and Blanc Webber, deleted. ] I'd further add that there *are* reasons for a business to use escrow, [and I'm using the term "escrow" correctly here, as opposed to the government's use when referring to master-key systems imposed by a third party rather than information given to a neutral third party by the principals of a contract.] For instance, a business may want to keep records of communications with other businesses, such as purchase orders, electronic payments, etc. but may want to send the communications encrypted. Escrowing keys and encrypted messages is one way to provide for later dispute resolution. Maybe not the best, but it can be useful. (A digital signature by the recipient of a hash of the message is another.) Escrowing passwords can also be a reasonable business practice - you *don't* want to have your business records become unavailable if the system administrator gets hit by a bus, and you'd really rather not have your corporate encrypted mail gateway become unusable if the passphrase is lost. Again, escrow is one possible technique, though escrow on a per-message basis isn't the best for these applications. When I bought my house, the down payment to the sellers went into escrow until we concluded the contract, as insurance for them that I wouldn't back out. Eric Weaver writes: > The government should NOT be viewed similarly to an employer in its > relationship with citizens. Employees are free to quit and make their > income some other way. It should, however, be viewed similarly to an _employee_, which it is. On the other hand, when you quit your job, you don't have to leave town; you just find another job if there is one, or maybe start your own business. Even if we viewed governments similarly to employers, this approach would encourage them to keep their employees happy - otherwise, we'd quit working for the Yankees, and either go armadillo or join the North American Self-Defense Cooperative or the Quaker Aikido League. Bill

1 0

Re: Just say NYET to kneejerking
by Jonathan Rochkind 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

***** 2- The censorship that I advance is censorship _by parents_ _for their own children_. Only. People have talked about cable boxxes and telephones. Are you not aware that many cable companies offer boxes with a (physical) key that must be present in order for certain channels to come through? That the phone companies currently allow customers to disallow outgoing 900 calls? My idea is to implement a net-equivalent system--household by household determination of what will be allowed into their homes. ***** There is a difference between mandating and offering. Between allowing and requring. If there were cable companies which _forced_ people to use boxes of that sort, and phone companies which _required_ customers to disallow 900 calls, your analogy might be closer. And most of us would probably be in fierce opposition to those systems too. I'll echo what other people have said: you are perfectly free to set up a system which only gives accounts to children if their parents get a "overseeing" account too. No one here will mind at all, I dont' think. People will mind if you require all systems to behave that way. It's the difference between offering a service and requiring people to be censors. I'm not sure why you don't see the distinction here.

1 0

Re: AA BBS sysops found guilty
by jim＠bilbo.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > At best, the SC decision could include language says that > > persons downloading information are responsible for > > ensuring that the material is not in violation of local > > laws. At worst, the SC could say that the operators of > > information systems are responsible for insuring > > material is not made available to persons in certain > > regions, if the material violates laws in those regions. > > > > And both are similarly unreasonnable: At best, how do you > know for sure before you download, Exactly what I fear most from this case. In order to assist users, sysops may be required to rate and/or categorize all downloadable material using a rating scale or list of categories determined by some governing body (FCC?). If the sysops do not following the guidelines, then they can be considered participants in the distribution of "bad stuff" to "good places". > and at worst, are you supposed to know the law for all > countries, states, counties and cities with access to > Internet and connected networks when even an attorney > cannot possibly know the law for a single state? > I think "At worst" is not very likely, for the reasons you state. That's why I worry more about "At best". I think the only real good outcome would be that the verdict is overturned because of some technicality, preventing the case from becoming some kind of landmark. However, this would only delay things until the next case. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

2 1

Keyword voice searching
by cmckie＠ccs.carleton.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have access to the original article? The author is unnamed in this version. One would wonder who the "congressional and other sources" are as well. ============= Ottawa Citizen Friday July 29 1994 A9 Key words trigger U.S. security system Seattle Times WASHINGTON - Dozens of words, including "bomb", "assassination" and "terrorist," apparently can trigger a recording device used by the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls between the U.S. and foreign countries. So say congressional and other sources who have been offered a glimpse of the agency's secretive electronic intelligence gathering. There is surveillance equipment, referred to simply as the big vacuum cleaner, said to be capable of sweeping up conversations in the air, recording them and then searching for words that might indicate some hostile action against this country. In his book The Puzzle Palace, author James Bamford contends the agency operates a worldwide network that can eavesdrop on almost every phone conversation in the world. The agency has denied it has such broad capabilities.

1 0

penet spoofs
by rjc＠powermail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Yours truly has been stung. Someone used rjc(a)powermail.com to create a penet address. Since I have never used that address to post anywhere else except cypherpunks, the spoofer is probably on cypherpunks. I thought it might have been caused by a penet'er being subscribed to cypherpunks but a similar thing did not happen to my other accounts. -Ray

3 2