December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Risks of a style anonymizer?
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> When did it become the style to have a clause, a colon, and another > clause as the title of things? This seems to be universal in govt and > university and highbrow blue-paper reports nowadays! ...always has been in the scientific literature. Also quite popular in Usenet and mailing list posts. My comment was in jest anyway. Yeesh. 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.

2 1

Windows 95 encryption shell extension
by Andy Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.fim.uni-linz.ac.at/win32/codedrag/codedrag.htm Haven't tried it myself since I don't use Windows 95, just thought I'd report what I saw. - Andy

1 0

Re: Internet Privacy Guaranteed ad (POTP Jr.)
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 04:42 AM 02/19/96 -0500, Futplex wrote: >> We will even prepare, or help prepare, the DIR.LST for users. >> >> While we have the software and manufacturing facility to do >> that quickly, it is not easily transportable, to say the >> least, and certain aspects of it, we consider highly proprietary. > >"not easily transportable, to say the least" ??? >Any ideas to what this might refer ? > Disk duplicating hardware? CDROM mass duplicator? (gotta put all those bits *somewhere* :-) Maybe it's the fission pile they're using as a RNG..... Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMSeExMVrTvyYOzAZAQEKkQQAs/MfDsFq0YHiP0D40LnJ4E2Sbe1hkx64 vLngAmZMgck7Hl6XiSjkuGJFYQrFzalOMhl7PH5FLcnGM/THDxhsMZo6K4ygZZmf MZO5P0fJ4hfnBEjHp/Uv3407ITj2kJ51bf6Ct6npNmmPghLRhakotoD4IqbYy8Ii iYWP6H1fQX8= =WB2C -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------------------------------------- "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P. J. O'Rourke (b. 1947), U.S. journalist. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> For privacy tools: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/1148

1 0

Re: Science News - article on Quantum Crypto
by jah＠alien.bt.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I am not sure this is correct. In-line optical amplifiers work by > stimulated emission like a laser rod. There is no intermediate > electronic stage. The amplifier is a section of fibre that is doped > with a rare earth element. The rare earth atoms are boosted into a metastable > high energy state using a power source around the fibre. Passing signals > (photons) stimulate the decays of the metastable states releasing more > photons and boosting the signal. I am not sure what the effect of this on the > polarisation characteristics of the signal is but my *hunch* is that the > polarisation characteristics would be preserved in the amplified signal. > > Sherry > > ps Any laser physicists in the house? Dr. Simon Phoenix (my resident quantum crypto guru) says no, you can't use em - you have to build secure repeaters. Simon has been doing this sort of thing in the Lab for years. He's simon(a)alien.bt.co.uk if you want to probe him gently. /.J BTW: You can build an Erbium doped amp that is 'transparent' to your secure channel.

1 0

Re: Req. for soundbites
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Feb 18, 1996 19:27:04, 'frantz(a)netcom.com (Bill Frantz)' wrote: >>A local TV station has asked me for an interview, after I sent a graphic >>of a mono-digital hand gesture with the phrase "censor this!" to the Prez, >>Veep, and the area congresscritters (cc'd to 2 TV stations and a radio >>station), accompanied by a 'confession' and demand for swift prosecution. >> >>Anyone got any nifty sound bites I can try to toss in? > I do not think that sound bites are the way to deal with these complex issues. "Sound bites," (a.k.a. bumper stickers, advertising jingles, or more accurately "magical thinking") contribute to the problem where emotionally-charged issues are able to bypass the critical facilities. So many of the attacks on crypto and the net are based exactly on sound bites around the "Four Horsemen" coupled with magical incantations on simple ways to defeat the problem. One does not fight magic with magic but with science; one does not fight bad hysteria with good hysteria but with adult thinking. --tallpaul

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 4:12 3/13/96, Matthew Richardson wrote: >On Wed, 13 Mar 1996 00:28:48 -0500, "Robert A. Rosenberg" ><hal9001(a)panix.com> wrote: > >>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). > >I believe that provided all your keys are in your secret keyring, PGP >will automatically pick the correct one for you. I know that. The situation was that the hypothetical message format itself contained NO INDICATION of who is was for or what key was used to encode it. PGP selects the right key by using the indication that is in the message of what key is to be used.

1 0

recent ( 3 months ) software developements?
by Gary Lee Jeffers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Cypherpunks, Due to really lousey circumstances, I have been unable to monitor my mail for the last 3 months. Also, last 3 months mail currently unavailble to me. I am interested in finding out if there have been any new soft- ware offerings or software upgrades in that time. My particular interest is Dos/Windows. Also, locations where software can be downloaded. Note that a brief description of recent software developements maybe helpful to other Cypherpunks with little time to monitor Cypherpunks list. Beat State, Gary Jeffers

1 0

RE: Leahy bill, legalize crypto
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:41 PM 3/14/96, Robichaux, Paul E wrote: >Tim May said: >>Suppose encryption is allowed, but only with key escrow? [...] >>And it might pass constitutional muster (for the same reasons the FCC >>jurisdiction over airwaves and the ban on encryption by ham operators, got >>approval. > >The restriction on using encryption on the ham bands is an outgrowth of the >world-wide spectrum allocation process. Spectrum's allocated by the >International Telecommunications Union (ITU); every four years, the World >Amateur Radio Council (WARC) meets to go over existing allocations. >Sometimes hams lose (as when the 220MHz band went away) and sometimes they >win. > >The ITU accords were originally signed around WW I, when use of encryption >on the radio bands was of great concern. The whole licensing system is based >on the concept of an Amateur Radio _Service_, whose operators are licensed >by the FCC to use a "public" resource. Said use is restricted by >international treaties to which the US is a signatory. > >The difference here is that the courts have upheld government restrictions >on broadcast spectrum because it's a scarce resource. In the special case of >encryption on ham bands, no one's ever even challenged the restriction >AFAIK. As Duncan Frissell has preached here many times, bandwidth is no >longer as scarce, so I think a constitutional challenge to an encryption ban >would probably be workable. Yes, and I said as much--about the bandwidth limitations--in my post. In the very next line after you stopped quoting!!!!!: "Sure, I understand that Internet bandwidth is not the same as the "public airwaves," but this subtlety may not be enough to stop the parallel from being successfully drawn. Especially if the phone companies and other threatened players are pushing hard for the FCC to step in and regulate." I'm not usually such a quibbler, but it irks me when people stop the quoting at a certain point, then make the same point made in the elided section, then say, "But bandwidth is a scarce resource." 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). This is why I said I could see a parallel argument for limiting crypto. And if other countries are needed to get an international treaty signed, there will be no shortage of such lap dogs available to do the bidding of the U.S. The most otherwise-hostile countries to the U.S. will jump at the chance to impose a worldwide ban on encrypted communications. --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

AMEX and Netscape
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

American Express Platinum card holders might want to look at the bottom of their statement: CARD USE ON THE INTERNET -- Cardmembers should only conduct transactions over the internet using broswer software that supports industry-standard encryption protocols, such as those offered by Netscape or CyberCash. We anticipate that additional and improved encryption protocols for Card transactions will become available over the next 3-6 months. American Express will keep you informed of new developments in this area. (Any Gold or Green card holders have the same notice?) --- My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn(a)schloss.li "In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti 00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information

1 0

To IEEE: Don't Support Leahy Crypto Bill
by anon-remailer＠utopia.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(To: medialink-list(a)WELL.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, action(a)eff.org, hal(a)hal.hpl.hp.com, farber(a)central.cis.upenn.edu, junger(a)pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.cwru.edu) 12 March 1996 Before IEEE decides to "applaud" Leahy's bill publicly, I hope that the organization carefully considers the bill's shortcomings. In particular it might want to consider the critique written by Peter Junger <junger(a)pdj2-ra.F-REMOTE.cwru.edu> of Case Western University Law School. Junger writes that with Leahy's legislation: "The major threat is that, for the first time, there would be at least colorable Congressional authority for the requirement that one obtain a license before publishing or otherwise disclosing information. And software is, after all, nothing but information." I urge the IEEE to rethink its position. At the very least, please consider supporting Rep. Goodlatte's bill which includes a more explicit prohibition on the executive branch mandating key escrow. It is important that we back that bill before it goes to conference, since we can have little impact on it thereafter. Please redistribute this letter as appropriate. Warmly, Philomela =-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= DRAFT -- Do NOT Redistribute! IEEE Applauds Leahy Encryption Bill =-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= DRAFT March 12, 1996 The Committee on Communications and Information Policy of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, United States Activities applauds the proposed Encrypted Communications Privacy Act. This legislation, introduced by Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT), Patricia Murray (D-WA) and Conrad Burns (R-MT), will remove unnecessarily restrictive controls on the export of encryption technology. Current restrictions on the export of encryption technology harm the interests of the United States in three ways: they handicap American producers of software and hardware, prevent the development of a secure information infrastructure, and limit the ability of electronically active Americans to maintain their privacy. The proposed legislation addresses all of these issues, while maintaining prohibition on the use of cryptography to hide criminal activities. Technological progress has moved encryption from the realm of national security into private sphere. Current policies, as well as the policy-making processes, should reflect this new reality. We applaud recent changes in information policy which mitigate the severity of controls on encryption technologies. With the additional changes sought by Senators Leahy, Murray and Burns, the United States can maintain its historical leadership in cryptography. Without the handicap of limitations on their ability to export secure systems, American software and hardware producers have the potential to excel in the global market for secure products. The removal of unnecessary restrictions on exports will also enable the creation of a Global Information Infrastructure sufficiently secure to provide seamless connectivity to customers previously unreachable by American companies. The United States is a leader in Internet commerce. However, Internet commerce requires cryptography. Thus American systems have been hindered by cold-war restraints on the necessary cryptography as these systems have moved from the laboratory to the marketplace. This legislation would open the market to secure, private, ubiquitous electronic commerce. The cost of not opening the market to secure American Internet products may include the loss of decades of leadership in Internet technologies, just as the Internet is entering its most profitable period. Finally, Sen. Leahy, Murray and Burns would be serving all users of electronic information systems in creating a truly global market for secure desktop environments. Having secure and private electronic spaces is of particular interest to the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, United States Activities and its members. The Committee on Communications and Information Policy of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, United States Activities applauds Senators Pat Leahy (D-VT), Patricia Murray (D-WA) and Conrad Burns (R-MT) for their foresight and supports the proposed legislation to liberalize controls on cryptography. Sincerely, [Signed] Visit http://www.ieee.org/ for more information.

1 0