December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: unsubscrive
by Kim Johansson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:18 09.04.96 +0000, Brad Shantz wrote: >Time May Wrote: > >>Maybe these dweebs are posting from an alternate universe? A universe in >>which not even messages explaining that "unsubscrive," "unsuscribe," >>"undescribe," "unscribe," and "unimbibe" are not valid alternate spellings >>of "unsubscribe." >> >>I've copied my short explanation of how to subscribe and unsubcribe too >>many times to do it again; and it is clear that these folks are either >>doing this out of spite, are not reading any of the messages we send them, >>or think it funny. > >I agree with you to a point, Tim. They probably haven't read the >messages about how to properly unsubscrive. Not because they are >dweebs or because they think it's funny. they probably haven't read >the messages because they have 2 or 3 thousand messages in their >inbox and they're all from cpunks. Unfortunately, this time, I have >to give them the benefit of the doubt for being ignorant. I don't >think they're being vindictive. > >How many of them have posted Unsub messages after being told the >proper way to unsub? > >Brad > I want off. Please help me.

2 1

Tips on Tapping Taps
by Dave Del Torto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Vernor, What's your thinking on some privacy protection measures for these types of "embedded systems?" Shouldn't these kinds of "instruments" (one ringy-dingy) have some user-defeats or -definable permissions settings built in from Day One? Do we risk e$ accounts being billed automatically by water/gas/electric meters on a daily basis without the possibility of users disputing the readings in a timely way? Is anyone proposing permissions on such boxes? What're the proposals, if any, for how the automated calls they make get billed, get scheduled and show up on customer phone bills? I wonder if the bills decrease, since this all saves the companies lots of money? I'm all for "smart houses" but I'd prefer they learn the tricks _I_ teach 'em. dave ................................. cut here ................................. >Date: 10 Apr 96 19:03:05 EDT >From: Dan Druck <73543.2304(a)CompuServe.COM> >Subject: H2O Phone Taps > >WATER METER PHONE TAPS > >Recently, I received notice from our local water department (Algonquin, >Illinois) that new water meters are to be installed in every residence. >The twist is that the new meter taps into our telephone line and >periodically and automatically reports the meter reading to the water >department. > >Perhaps this is innocent enough but, being ever vigilant about my privacy, >I've contacted the water department to get more info which they've >promised to send. Interestingly, they told me I didn't have to accept this >phone-tap meter, however they asked to install a different meter with a >similar type of reporting device which is triggered via a device that also >receives the meter reading (from just outside my house). I can only assume >this transmission is made via a radio transmitter on the meter (which >isn't really much of a consolation for me). This seems a bit oxymoronical >since there already exists an external meter gauge on the exterior of my >house. What is the advantage to standing outside my home with a >transmitter/receiver over visually reading the external meter gauge??? > >Obviously, how can one tell what the little micro-chip within the gizmo is >*really* programmed to do? As you might imagine, I'm not at all >comfortable with this thing wired into my phone line. I know..... if Big >Brother wants to, he can listen in to my phone conversations or even into >my house without such hard-wire tap. But I don't feel compelled to >willingly submit to a potential invasion of my privacy, none-the-less! > >I can only assume resisting the installation of this Orwellian device will >result in putting my name on every Barney Fife "what's he got to hide" >list - who knows. > >I urge everyone who reads this to be vigilant about such things. If you >receive such a notice from a public utility, you might be well advised to >question them as I am doing. Sadly, most of my neighbors are probably >submitting to this without a thought as I've not seen any letters of >protest to the editor of the local newspaper ....a sign of the times, I >guess. > >Dan Druck, Council on Domestic Relations >Congressional Candidate / 8th District, Illinois > >Permission to repost/reprint (in whole or in part) >is granted so long as such is accurate and proper >credit is given. 96MML12 > >Council on Domestic Relations web page: > http://www.logoplex.com/shops/cdr/cdr.html > (last update 1/5/96) >Druck for Congress web page: > http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ddruck > (last update 2/1/96) >"CDR Info Hour" Radio Program / every Saturday @ 6:00p.m. CST > Shortwave 9.400 MHz > Satellite - Galaxy 6, Trnspndr 23, 6.1 Wide Band

2 1

Re: Is crypt(1) a prohibited export?
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:31 AM 4/10/96 -0700, Chris McAuliffe wrote: >The man page is a bit dated: > crypt implements a one-rotor machine designed along the lines of the > German Enigma, but with a 256-element rotor. Methods of attack on > such machines are known, but not widely; moreover the amount of work > required is likely to be large. > >Clearly written before CBW became popular. What they are not telling you is the "large amount of work" is to get CBW to *compile*, not to break crypt(1). (Crypt Breakers Workbench uses some obsolete calls. I do not know of an existing updated version, but that does not mean one does not exist...) --- | Remember: Life is not always champagne. Sometimes it is REAL pain. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Crypto, Right to privacy, International standards
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz > Date: Wed, 10 Apr 1996 18:57:07 +1200 (NZST) > Subject: New paper on crypto regulation and the right to privacy available > > The notion of a right to privacy of citizens in their communications is > discussed in the context of an international movement by governments towards > regulation of cryptography, and consideration of key forfeiture systems in > national cryptography use. The authors argue that the right to privacy in > communications networks is an issue of major importance, assuring freedom of > the individual in national and global communications. Regulation and control > of cryptography use on the Internet by national governments may lead to an > imbalance in the citizen/government power relationship, with sequelae > including unprecedented surveillance of citizens, disruption of international > commerce due to lack of powerful cryptography (and lack of standardisation), > human rights abuses by less democratic or non-democratic governments, and > limiting of the political potential of an Internet global political system. > Doesn't the United Nations (UN) have some sort of statement about this? I have a vague recollection that it says something about individuals having a right to communicate with others including those outside their own countries. Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

JBell filter (was Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?)
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 05:22 PM 04/13/96 EDT, dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr. Dimitri Vulis) wrote: >"Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> writes: >> Just a small meta-request. I already filter everything Jim writes -- >> its all junk -- but when people reply to a message of his and send the >> mail only to Cypherpunks, it is hard for me to filter the reply. > >It's a pity most mailers don't preserve 'References:'. >Can you filter out everything that says 'in-reply-to .* pacifier.com>'? > I initially tried filtering out anything _from_ JB; still got overloaded by people trying to talk some sense into him (at the time, it was Black Unicorn arguing law with him). Finally had to simply tell Eudora that anything from him, or including his name (contains:) goes straight to the trash. That finally did the trick. Interestingly, he's the only one I trash, sight unseen..... Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMW96ocVrTvyYOzAZAQH+JgP9G9pAJEFsI0xV263ftQFVdZO1yKM50aKG 5CAqtyWp8fZPtocofo3kC2Z6qdGEbEd2hTM10uxdKh0tggRlWg61Ie44OVjgYfie 5ysPooKQdilinUh2m34lmYpuvMuc4RO+FKn3Y/yrJeUXpvvQX6C8OiWrAVlEAC+c DaTpcPYVkOc= =De5u -----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. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> http://www.shellback.com/personal/merriman/index.htm

2 1

US crypto laws? Need help!
by Jean.Chouanard＠grenoble.rxrc.xerox.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi! I was wondering if a foreigner like, with a valid work visa but not a permanet green card, is allowed to use crypto in the state. If yes, is there any restriction? Depending on crypto methods? Thank a lot, Jean --- let's all be different, just like me. --- Jean Chouanard | Jean.Chouanard(a)Grenoble.RXRC.Xerox.com Networks & Systems Eng. | Rank Xerox Research Centre Fax: (33) 76 61 51 99 | 6, Ch de maupertuis Ph: (33) 76 61 50 90 | 38240 Meylan FRANCE

5 4

Re: Enforcing the CDA improperly may pervert Internet architecture
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One issue with the "We could require that everybody label their packets" proposal is that a large part of the world isn't under FCC or even US control; why should some foreigner label their packets based on the tastes of US censors? Another problem is that adequate labelling requires public-key cryptography, and the US bans export of crypto; this means you can't use the best technical standards for domestic use and export, and means you can't mass-market exportable rating software. We EEEVILLL Net Users would certainly be _happy_ if the FCC or Congress talked the Administration into legalizing the use of decent authentication technology. (They could argue that the ITAR permits authentication-only technology, but there are clear technical advantages to RSA vs. DSS, and DSS has the subliminal-key options that mean you can use it for non-authentication encryption as well as signatures anyway. There's also the problem that both are patented, though the patents behind DSS are weak and run out in a year or two.) Another problem is that this proposal would require multiple authentication headers per IP packet - not only is it wasteful, but is it even supported? I suppose there's some tunneling approach possible, but it'd be really awkward and non-portable. ObExon: Does the Administration propose to label any on-line copies of the Federal Register? There's often material in there, such as the recent Congressional debates on partial-birth abortion, that are clearly in violation of the CDA if posted to the nets, so they would have to be labeled. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215

1 0

Re: Enforcing the CDA improperly may pervert Internet architecture
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"alano(a)teleport.com" "Alan Olsen" 10-APR-1996 02:41:54.68 >Forget the porno... What are the parents who believe in Creationism going >to do when little Johnny runs into a good skeptical site debunking all that >crap? What are they going to do when the little liberal kids are exposed to >the works of conservitives? Or Biblical Inerentists kidlets are exposed to >the debunkings of that faith? Or Dorthy Denning's kids (if she has any) get >exposed to the writings of the subversive known as Tim May? Quite. It's interesting in that regard that, as well as differentiating between homosexual and heterosexual content, the W3C PICS scheme includes a filtration scheme for attacks on religions. One wonders if they considered that Scientology is currently (probably unjustifiedly) considered a religion? -Allen

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:25 PM 4/9/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 6:27 PM 4/9/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>At 07:08 PM 4/9/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: >>>At 3:21 PM 4/9/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: >>>>And the rest of us are tired of seeing those non-responses! >>> >>>I wish to state that Jim Bell does not speak for me. >> >>Tell me, what is the most exciting, interesting, and imaginative usage of >>"Yadda Yadda Yadda" that _you_ remember, Bill? > >This will be my last post on this subject. Since Jim Bell ALWAYS has to >have the last word on any given subject, he will continue to try to read >something into my statement that is not there. I can not get much clearer >than: > >I have not authorized Jim Bell to speak for me. > I seem to recall seeing this message about 4 days ago, when it was originally posted. Somehow it is not me who seems to need to "have the last word." Apparently, not only do you need to have the last word, you need to have it TWICE.

1 0

Re: Enforcing the CDA improperly may pervert Internet architecture
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:08 PM 4/9/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >Of course that doesn't overcome the "technical problem" of getting the IETF >to adopt that change in the protocols and getting a significant number of >sites to adopt the new protocol. Even if you impose a substitutte on the >IETF, it doesn't stop them from wandering off and creating their independent >protocols and seeing whether the "official" or the "unofficial" get adopted. What, you mean requiring that Americans on an international standards body bully the whole anarchy into accepting a technically inferior kluge because some American politicians want it? This ain't the UN... or even ISO. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215

1 0