December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re:LACC: PC Phones Home? -Reply
by Raymond Mereniuk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Writes >A few questions: >1- How does the PC know where it is? >2- How does the PC know it has been stolen? ...deleted text... > #1 is the use of CallerID on the line when the software calls, >which is defeated by the use of line blocking by the thief. The ...deleted text... >Obvious solution for potential thieves: wipe the disks and reinstall >an OS once you steal a PC. This should be done anyway to remove any >bits of data which might identify the original owner. >Conclusion: Yet another useless piece of software riding the >computer security bandwagon. >jim You should visit their web site at http://absolute.com for more information as they can do what they say they can. A high level format does not change bad track assignments and neither will fdisk so if you hide something in an assigned bad track (cylinder or cluster or whatever it is called) nothing will see it. Now all you have to do is activiate the software in the bad track, I don't know how that is done (trade secret??) but maybe someone has figured out how to do it. Calls to 1-800 numbers can not block caller-ID, call-blocking will not stop the calling number from being passed to the appropriate equipment setup at the receiving end. Maybe these people have developed the ultimate virus, you can't detect it, you can't remove it, and you don't know it even exists. I don't really know how well this software package works but your comments had many errors. Normally Lurking Raymond

1 0

RE: Leahy bill, legalize crypto
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:50 AM 3/14/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 2:41 PM 3/14/96, Robichaux, Paul E wrote: >>Tim May said: >Besides which, I think the "scarce resource" argument against crypto over >the airwaves is clearly a fig leaf. Only amateur, non-corporate users are >affected. The intent of the rules, never repealed, seems more of an attempt >to limit the widespread deployment of ham radio for espionage purposes >(e.g., a ham sitting above a harbor area reporting on ship movements). I think Tim is absolutely right. If you look at "The Code Breakers" that kind of thinking was common in the WW1-WW2 era. The age of the 30 minute war somewhat diminished the strength of the argument. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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

Re: PGP reveals the key ID of the recipient of encrypted msg
by Robert A. Rosenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 16:36 3/11/96, John Pettitt wrote: >I can see a case where one would want to broadcast a message (say on usenet) >with *no* indication of the intended recipient (not even a non registered >key-id). It would seem to be easy enough to hack up something that does not >have key-IDs - to know if it's for you try decryption and if it works then >it was for you. This does not scale well as the recipient must trial >decrypt all messages which could use *a lot* (tm) of CPU time. There is also the problem of knowing WHICH key to use (ie: Even when you know the message is intended for you, you must do a test run with each of your keys until one works). Thus you want private keys whose ownership is not publicly linked to your known identity (but is known to your correspondents). So long as you have your corespondent's published Public Key, you can use it to do a one-time transmission of a private Public Key to be used to do anonymous (ie: Not Linked to your Public Identity) transmissions to you.

4 3

Re: Leahy bill nightmare scenario?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:29 PM 3/11/96, jim bell wrote: >Welcome to prison, Tim. Your optimism will serve you well, there. > >BTW, it is clear that you haven't yet read Mr. Junger's analysis of the >bill. Nobody except a government stooge could read that and not wonder why >anybody would support that bill. A complete re-write is called for. A question, Jim: do you _ever_ just respond calmly to a post you disagree with, or is everyone you disaagree a stooge, a cretin, an agent for the Feds, or someone who should be disposed of with your "assassination politics"? Yes, I read Junger's analysis. A nice analysis. What does this have to do with the points I was making? I'm a government stooge, to use your terms, because of my points about hotel rooms? (On second thought, don't answer. In fact, I hope you take this opportunity to add me to your kill file, the computer version, not the Assassination Poltics (tm) version.)) --TCM 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: How's that again?
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:37 PM 3/12/96 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: > I guess it's no surprise that one of the more-or-less "good guys" > in the Senate can propose a law so ambiguously worded that it > looks good on the face until a good lawyer takes the time to rip > it apart Looking for "good guys" in Washington is like Ronald Reagan looking for "moderates" in Iran. On crypto, and on taxes, our interests and their their interests are completely opposed. We should not care about, or take any interest in, the slight difference between the "moderate" and extremist members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The best bill we can ever hope to get out of Washington is no bill at all. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Why escrow? (was Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 13 Mar 96 at 9:41, jim bell wrote: > Notice, however, how the government seems to be assuming that "key escrow" > (to the extent that it is implemented at all!) gets implemented in a way > which is "friendly" to government agents. They assume that there is one key Since when is the government intentionally going to let any bill or policy go through that isn't friendly to themselves??? (You don't have to be an anarchist to figure that out!) [..] > Even the most limited planning could easily develop a system that achieves > all the benefits of escrow for the user, but is essentially impossible for > government agents (or for that matter, anyone else!) to use to the detriment > of the user. Nothing is safe from abuse, by the goverment or non-government fols alike. There's always more loopholes to clean up. (Not that this means we shouldn't clean them up... obviously bad policies should be fixed...). Just as no crypto is 100% foolproof, no legal system is 100% abuse-proof. 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

Re: How's that again?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:37 PM 3/12/96 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 05:40 PM 3/12/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >>Revise your statement to: >>"doesn't want anyone who hasn't spent a few years in law school to pass >>judgement on pending legislation and the effect of supreme court decision >>thereon..." >>and you'd be right on the money. > >I'm not a lawyer, though I've played a politician on TV. I'll grant you >that lawyers and other trained legal professionals can do a far better >job of finding and analyzing cases than amateurs like myself, though I suspect >a month or two's experience with Lexis would be enough to let many >of "the rest of us" outsearch the average lawyer of 50 years ago >who had to rely on his or her wits alone. But if the average intellegent >person _can't_ evaluate a law and have a reasonable chance of figuring >out what it says and what it means, there's something seriously wrong >with the way new laws are written, as well as enforced. Well said. If more people lambasted this "Black Unicorn" fellow for his legal-elitist ways, he'd actually be forced to either shut up or use reasoned argument to support his odd position. Laws, as I understand it, used to be written so that ordinary people could understand them. That's the way it ought to be today, but isn't, precisely because the elitists have had their way for so long. There used to be a saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." The presumption was that you had a responsibility to know what the law said, and that most people could understand what it said, and if you didn't take the time to know it you were guilty despite this. Today, that saying is laughably out of date: When people like "Black Unicorn" claim that ordinary people haven't the skills to evaluate any law or proposed law, it is obvious that he and his ilk is a major portion of the problem. >(I suppose I've complained enough that there _is_ something >seriously wrong them that I'm not adding any new weight here; >if the author of a portion of a law can get up on the Senate floor >and say that he realizes that part of the law he's proposed is >unconstitutional and unenforceable, and that this doesn't bother him*, >I guess it's no surprise that one of the more-or-less "good guys" >in the Senate can propose a law so ambiguously worded that it >looks good on the face until a good lawyer takes the time to rip >it apart - maybe Leahy will read some of Junger's review?) The system is sick, perhaps irretrievably so. Dr. Strangelove (in the movie of the same name) stated that "deterrence is the art of making the enemy FEAR to attack." I think the main problem (and the most direct solution) to the "politician-problem" in this country is to make government agents FEAR to do the wrong thing. >> And I confirm again that I'm an elitist legal snob. >> At least I know what I'm talking about. > >[* Is it true that the reason Election Day is on the _second_ >Tuesday of November is to guarantee it never falls on Guy Fawkes' Day?] It's going to take a lot more than gunpowder to solve this problem. Although that would be a good start... Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Why escrow? (was Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:25 PM 3/14/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >On 14 Mar 96 at 12:00, jim bell wrote: > >> At 07:57 AM 3/14/96 +0000, Deranged Mutant wrote: >> >Would it be legal to deceive an escrow agent? >> >> It _should_ be legal. At least, assuming the arrangement is truly voluntary >> and the escrow agent gets his part of the bargain (his usual fee) he has no >> interest in knowing whether or not the data he's holding for you is "real" >> or "imaginary." > >I mean illegal in the sense that your true purpose is to decieve law >enforcement. (Yes, it'll also fake out anyone who bribes the escrow >agent for your keys, though....) As long as they claim that escrowing keys is "voluntary" in the first place, then I find it hard to imagine that they would have a legal claim against you if the key you "escrowed" was phony. OTOH, if one potentially-valid interpretation of the law is that failing to give the keys when you're asked is a crime, presumably even if you never had them in the first place, then all bets are off. IMO, a properly-designed crypto telephone keeps nothing with it that would later be useable to decrypt the conversations it has transmitted or received; one danger in this bill is that its very existence might make the manufacture of crypto phones with this characteristic illegal, on the theory that because they keep no keys, the user is going to be in violation of this law automatically. It's a stretch, but a stretch the government is always anxious to make. And if you recall the requirements the government wanted to put on telephones equipped with Clipper, one thing they eventually admitted was that they were insisting that such phones be designed to be inoperable with a telephone that had its "key-escrow" not "enabled". And they still wanted to call it "voluntary! That's a laugh! >Of course that depends how you give your key to an escrow agent. If >it's already escrowed when you buy a phone, for instance... That's the real danger with any such legislation. Individuals can generally only get things that are manufactured for sale. (You can't buy a car with a 7-cylinder engine, for instance...) If manufacturers are dissuaded from building a good crypto telephone, then key-escrow can be as "voluntary" as you want and you still won't be able to exercise your rights. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Why escrow? (was Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:30 PM 3/14/96 -0500, Yawn82(a)aol.com wrote: >How the hell do I get off this list? You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave.

1 0

Re: FCC-type Regulation of Cyberspace
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:26 PM 3/14/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Mr. Frantz, unless you can prove your claims here, forthwith, I must inform >you that they are in violation of the Truth in Speech Act of 1996. Please >retract them, now. Political speech, not commercial speech. The act doesn't apply or is unconstitutional. >Do you see the problem? Of course. Why do you think I said (in the 4th paragraph which you didn't quote) (ZING :-) ): >In thinking back over the discussion, I would like to eliminate the >restrictions without making markets less free by adding yet more barriers >to market entry. We certainly need more robust reputation agencies than we >have now. I just don't know how to encourage their formation. BTW - I consider non-free markets, produced primarily by oligarchic combines of large organizations to be a major impediment to removing government influence from the economic system. Easing market entry is one way to reduce the power of these oligarchic combines. I don't want to just trade elected government oppression for unelected corporate oppression. To put it bluntly, to suppress the 19th century coal mining strikes, the companies hired the Pinkertons. I don't see a whole lot of difference between this kind of private enterprise transaction, and Ruby Ridge. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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