December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Phil Zimmermann Interview online...
by RUSSELLDH＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't recall seeing this previously on the list. The interview itself is pretty lightweight - intended for a rather broad audience - but it's the sort of thing we could use more of (that is, good positive pro-crypto publicity). original message goes here ---> Hi! On February 2nd, 1996 I interviewed Phil Zimmermann and have transcribed that interview and placed it on the Web. It is located at: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hightech/philspgp.htm I hope you find it interesting. If you would like to add a link to it please let us know. By the way, I enjoyed visiting your home page, where I got your email address. Thanks, Russell Hoffman http://www.animatedsoftware.com --- David Smith, Intellecutal Terrorist http://www.midwest.net/scribers/dsmith/

1 0

Bad news from Judge Richey
by Phil Karn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

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. Phil

1 0

Re: LIST OF SHAME VOLUNTEERS
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:22 AM 3/25/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >E. Clark writes: >> I neither like nor trust the bill and, after the Digital Telephony >> Bill and its manner of passage, my trust in the good senator is zero. > >I spoke to a couple folks about this at the CDA hearings in Philadelphia >last week. Word on the streets from those who would know is that the >Leahy Bill has NOT A CHANCE IN HELL of passing, and so is worth >supporting to raise awareness of crypto. This is a dangerous position to take. Many people have killed themselves, accidentally, thinking "the gun isn't loaded!" This said, I see nothing wrong with fixing and improving the bill and only then supporting it. >After DT and Clipper, it's our chance to put Clinton and the DoJ on the >defensive for a change. If the Leahy bill "has not a chance in hell" of passing, then what's wrong with CORRECTING it. Given this assessment,I doubt whether such changes would reduce its chances. BTW, remember that one of the reasons its chances are rated as "not a chance in hell" is that the two constituencies who might normally support this bill, the crypto/software businesses and ourselves, see its promises as being weak and its negatives as being large. Without them, who else is there to support it? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

At 12:23 PM 3/25/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Obviously things get more complicated when a private key or set of keys "is >one's identity." That is, at some future time, when a key or set of keys is >literally the key to one's identity, then this document is no longer "just >another document." A law enforcement agency or court that obtains these >keys could do much damage, beyond just the matter being investigated or >tried in court. The release of the key cannot be undone. A thorny problem. This is precisely the problem Certificate Revocation Lists and Certificate Expiration Dates address. There seems very little reason to subpoena a persons signing key, only decryption keys. If future software uses separate keys for these two functions, then there may be minimal danger. (With PGP, it should be sufficient to provide the IDEA keys for the messages in question, leaving the secret key still secret.) Regards - 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

Re: RISKS: Princeton discovers another Netscape security flaw
by Paul_Koning/US/3Com%3COM＠smtp1.isd.3com.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ses @ tipper.oit.unc.edu (Simon Spero wrote: >A pound to a bucket of ferrets this is another visit from our good friends >Capt. Overrun and the static buffers, in which case it's more an indictment >of C So? I agree that it's essentially impossible to write reliable code in C, just as in assembly language. Actually, it's easier in assembly language because then you KNOW you have to do all the work yourself, while C misleads you into thinking it does some of the work for you when in fact it does not. That doesn't affect the point at all, though. The job of doing something like what Java claims to do correctly is basically equivalent to the job of creating an A2 grade operating system. (Don't bother looking for any, as far as I know the designation A2 doesn't even exist anymore because it is still beyond the state of the art. It means "verified implementation", i.e., the implementation -- not just the design as in in A1 -- is provably correct. Note that a strict interpretation of this would involve holding not just the code itself but also the tools that act on it -- like compilers, and microcode in machines that have it -- to A2 standards. If you wonder why, consider the famous Unix login hack from many years ago that involved a hack in the C compiler.) paul !----------------------------------------------------------------------- ! Paul Koning, NI1D, C-24183 ! 3Com Corporation, 1-3A, 118 Turnpike Road, Southborough MA 01772 USA ! phone: +1 508 229 1695, fax: +1 508 490 5873 ! email: paul_koning(a)isd.3com.com or paul_koning(a)3mail.3com.com ! Pgp: 27 81 A9 73 A6 0B B3 BE 18 A3 BF DD 1A 59 51 75 !----------------------------------------------------------------------- ! "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over ! any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent ! harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not ! a sufficient warrant." -- John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" 1859

3 2

Mentor request - ISEF/Westinghouse science fair project
by Jack Mott 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello cypherpunks, My name is Jack Mott, and I'm the junior in highschool who posted the c++ source code a while ago, and as you can see it is pretty bad. ( self taught over 9 months ) Anyway for a science fair project this year, I would like to either create a new, or implement an existing encryption algorithm from scratch. I need someone who has some experience programming in C/C++ and with crypto to get advice from and consult with from time to time. I have done well in science fairs in the past, and I could definitely win states with some help. If anyone is interested let me know. p.s. - there is another interesting twist to my project, but I don't want to give the idea away just yet. -- thecrow(a)iconn.net "It can't rain all the time"

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:21 AM 3/26/96, jim bell wrote: >While this may end up looking like another of Jim Bell's odd Yes, you got this part right. >interpretations, the only section in the US Constitution that I see as >potentially REQUIRING a person's testimony is the section (can't recall >which) which says that a defendant must have a process to compel the >appearance of witnesses in his favor. The Constitution, as far as I see, >says nothing about requiring people to appear for the PROSECUTION. 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. 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. (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. --Tim May 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: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:23 PM 3/25/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > Besides, I think the best way to overturn the > ITARs is through a court challenge; as I have noted, even the NSA's lawyers > felt that the ITARs would not withstand court scrutiny. Note that the spooks have carefully avoided a full bore court showdown. They harassed Phil until the statute of limitations caught up with them, but never brought it to trial. If we had no further legislation, and the courts broke ITAR, we would be home free. No plausible legislation could give us that. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

signature appl tested by IRS / PR today
by CA20007＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Today, on Monday, March 25th, in New York, a British company, Peripheral Vision Ltd., is demonstrating their technology for recording signatures electronically. The company is also launching a subsidiary called PenOp Inc. today. Their product is a plug-in for Netscape. users use a wacom board or its equivalent for writing actual signatures. IRS is testing the system for verifying signatures at a number of test sites.

4 3

Let's *NOT* "Raise their Awareness"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:15 AM 3/26/96, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: >At 01:22 AM 3/25/96 -0500, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >> Leahy Bill has NOT A CHANCE IN HELL of passing, and so is worth >> supporting to raise awareness of crypto. > >Washington is the last place where we wish to raise awareness of >crypto I try to avoid "me too" echoes, but this is worth concurring with, strongly. Nothing good can come out of "raising awareness," especially of an issue where the Consitution is already pretty clearly on the side of the right to speak in whatever language one chooses, to keep diaries in code if one wishes, to whisper to others, to place curtains on windows, to lock doors, and so on. (I suppose Jim Bell will point out that the Constitution contains no explicit language about placement of curtains....) Whenever Congress gets "exercised" about some subject, laws are often the result. And often the seemingly minor things thrown in to satisfy some interest end up ensnaring us in a new set of regulations. No thanks. We already can freely encrypt. We already can use any strength of cipher we can get. We already can deposit a spare key with our mother-in-law or with a friend in Lichtenstein. What more do we need? Free export of crypto products would be nice. But not if the quid pro quo for this is giving up some of the freedoms we already have. And "raising awareness" also increases the chances for _international treaty_ discussions. Frankly, the U.S. will be the instigator of any such treaty discussions, so the more ignorant the diplomats and legislators are, the better. Then they'll be less likely to broach the subject with their Italian, German, French, and Russian counterparts...the more of an "urgent issue" crypto is, the more it is being publically debated, the greater will be the likelihood that diplomats and legislators will "do something!" Remember the First Rule of Politics: "Look important and pass laws." --Tim May 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