December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Not a good idea...
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) >We need to be very careful here. A service like "SurfWatch," voluntarily >used by others, has entered into no contracts with sites to meet defined >standards of what should and shouldn't be blocked. It is essentially a >"review" service, like a reviewer of books, movies, restaurants, etc. Sure, >some books, movies, and restaurants are "hurt" by negative reviews, but >this is life in a free society. It has not yet reached the point in these >Beknighted States that a bad review can be the basis of a tort (though I >could be wrong...nothing would surprise me these days). One wonders if an ISP (say, Prodigy or AOL) that used SurfWatch to automatically filter everything could be liable if they filtered something that wasn't against their policies (due to overly accepting SurfWatch's or TimWatch's ratings) - non-provision of service? I'd guess they have some clause or another in their normal contract w/users to try to prevent such, but framing it so as to cover such without also basically making it a non-contract (no agreement to provide anything) could be difficult. -Allen

1 0

Symantec Q&A passwords
by Joshua E. Hill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well... this is only vaguely on topic, but: Does anyone know how to circumvent a password on a Q&A (3.0) database? Symantec said that they would do it for $75... I would imagine that means they use a trivial encryption system... Does anyone know if this is the case? (and if so, what system do they use?). Thank You, Joshua Hill -----------------------------Joshua E. Hill----------------------------- | Murphy's Military Laws: | | 3. Friendly fire ain't. | -------jehill@<gauss.elee|galaxy.csc|w6bhz|tuba.aix>.calpoly.edu--------

1 0

re: PA
by rah＠shipwright.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:42 PM 3/10/96, "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security" > Long enough ago that I have forgotten the citation, I read an even older > SF story about explosive necklaces worn by politicians. If their >electronic > agreement percentage (and think this was in the sixties folks) dropped > too low, a vacancy occured. We talked here a while back about the Gilbert & Sullivan operetta where there was a "court exploder" or something, whose job it was to blow up the king should the monarch become too egregious in conduct. The limiting factor was that the "exploder", or whatever, was the person who would inherit the king's job. ;-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "Reality is not optional." --Thomas Sowell The e$ Home Page: http://thumper.vmeng.com/pub/rah/

1 0

Re: rhetorical trickery
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:36 PM 3/10/96 -0500, Mark M. wrote: > There was an article in the July 1995 issue of Technology Review by > Dorothy Denning explaining the "evils of encryption" in defense of the > Clipper Chip which mentions this case. I suspect that it actually > happened. Why should the fact that Dorothy Denning says something lead you to suspect that it actually happened? --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

2 1

Leahy Bill a Move to Slow Crypto Exports as Much as Possible
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:42 AM 3/11/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"PADGETT(a)hobbes.orl.mmc.com" "A. Padgett Peterson P.E. >Information Security" 10-MAR-1996 01:15:57.84 > >>Thought the gotcha was down in the part about the Secretary of Commerce. >>My reading is that the secretary will still be required to grant >>approval for commercial export. Is past the part about no regulation >>inside the US (which is true now - still would be nice to see a "Congress >>shall make no law..."). The puzzler is the requirement that a comperable >>foreign product must exist before permission to export will be granted. > >>Will this be like "comparable product" price matching in discount houses ? >>Somehow there never is one... > > Quite. A better format would be "as hard or harder for the NSA to >decrypt," given the publically stated purpose for ITAR. I think this is showing that one of the intended purposes of the Leahy bill is to slow down exports of crypto for as long as possible, and then only to grant export licenses when competition from abroad threatens to undo the effects of the stalling process anyway. The clause reads to me as: "We'll delay approval for export of your software for as long as possible, and only grant approval when you face serious competition from abroad, by which time we'll have accomplished our goals anyway." It seems that the SPA estimates of $60B are being responded to, that the Leahy bill addresses the potential competitive losses to other products only. (And of course the $60B, though probably inflated, includes more than just lost sales because a vendor can't ship with strong encryption.) The effect of the clause is to make truly novel new applications--including many of the things that interest us--stallable for an indefinite period. Then, when the Italian or Taiwanese version appears, if ever, the export license will have to be granted. If this is a correct reading of the indended use, then this is another reason not to cheer about the Leahy bill. It would _not_ make crypto freely exportable. But by claiming it has loosened up crypto exports (which it will for certain corporate products), it will have taken the wind out of the sails of those who wanted relaxed exports. Those who can buy lobbyists and who are competing in fairly "standardized" niches, where competitors exist, will probably be able to get export licenses. Those in quasi-underground niches, trying to sell things that have not been built before, will likely face a stone wall. --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."

2 1

ADL_mil
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"ADL Special Report: The Militia Movement in America." A 1995 national survey by the ADL offers disturbing evidence that the militia movement has continued to grow. The ADL survey also found that many hard-core militiamen believe that the United States Government itself conducted the Oklahoma City bombing to create an excuse for further depriving citizens of their constitutional rights. A continuing flow of information from ADL Regional offices around the country indicates militias are operating in at least 40 states, with membership reaching some 15,000, and that these numbers could rise still higher. The following is a 40-state summary of known militia activity. ADL_mil (36 kb) [Thanks to AF]

3 3

Re: Lawz to be.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:20 PM 3/10/96 -0500, Matt Blaze wrote: >While I don't agree with some of the conclusions you reached in your note, By now you should have seen my most recent item, an editorial by George Will. The case he describes should make it clear to you that the abuse of property owned by an "innocent victim" does not protect that person from confiscation of his property. Or did you think it would? >I certainly agree that the Leahy bill would be better for cryptography >without this crime. I hope that section gets further narrowed (or removed >altogether), but based on discussions I've had with various Senate staffers, >I'm not optimistic that it will be. Okay, here are some questions you should be asking them: 1. Why was this one highly negative section added to what is otherwise apparently a good bill? Whose fingerprints are on it? 2. "All" bills can be amended. "Why not this section?!?" 3. "Why is this section so ambiguous?" 4. What crimes, EXACTLY, do you intend to prosecute using this section? 5. Can you list any examples of REAL incidents that have already occurred that would be in violation of this section if it were already in law? (Surely they know of some, right?!?) If they can think of no such examples, ask them why they are putting a "useless provision" into a law and why is it so important that it be there that we can't have it removed. 6. And finally, "what are you guys afraid of?" >If you feel strongly about this, You don't know how strongly I feel about this. > I urge you to lobby your Senators >(and representatives, since there's also a House version of the bill) and >tell them exactly what you like and don't like about this legislation, as >I am doing with mine. >-matt If that is all that I was planning to do to stop this bill, I would consider myself to be a slacker. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com Klaatu Burada Nikto... Which should stop this damn bill if you guys don't. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMUOtKfqHVDBboB2dAQGDKwQAm5rQbtAdaIByJGRKYW3KlxsNGGTKzuB6 U75G5KF8TgIuJKICrkGRjwG0/vnZo8kGuA9N1oCzwqQpTN4swMoOi26e8t/7DPim ZU3V4xGj9sUlopBBcN0pC8ksUC5ADB1K54nDfmbfEee0tL6GxstTgLKepIH2yC1j D7/2UGFbHnc= =vU5b -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto over HAM radio?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:26 PM 3/10/96 -0500, you wrote: >> >> Subject asks it. I'm not a HAM, but still curious. Wonder if anyone >> has brought this to Leahy's attention... >> >> Comments from the packet folx on the list? > >Non-cleartext has been forbidden for last 60 years anyhow. Yes, but the law _might_ have the side-effect of changing that. It'd be real pleasant if it does... I suspect the best way to make that happen would be to say "shhhh" any time anyone proposes mentioning the topic to a politician.... #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 pager 408-787-1281 # "At year's end, however, new government limits on Internet access threatened # to halt the growth of Internet use. [...] Government control of news media # generally continues to depend on self-censorship to regulate political and # social content, but the authorities also consistently penalize those who # exceed the permissable." - US government statement on China...

1 0

PGP reveals the key ID of the recipient of encrypted msg
by savron＠world-net.sct.fr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I began testing PGP a few days ago ( I'm a PGP newbie ) and I found that it gives out the key ID of an encrypted message . From this you can get the identification of the recipient of the message , if it's someone who has publicaly distributed his key (keyserver , homepage ...) . So even if you are unable to decode the message you can find who is the recipient of a given message . I think this is a big privacy problem . The problem is carried along when you encrypt a message for multiple recipients , you get the key IDs of all the recipients and same problem as above . I think something like 'blind email copy' should be used , because the recipients don't have to know the identity of each other . Comments from long time PGPer will be welcome

3 2

Re: SurfWatch
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 9-MAR-1996 21:00:29.15 >I plan to taper off on all responses to this thread about SurfWatch and >ratings services. Various sides have expressed their opinions about what >courts and governments will demand, and others respond by saying, "I >disagree. They can pass a law..." or "I disagree. The government is >powerless," etc. I can see your reasons for doing so. The discussion of how to use ratings systems in ways not intended, so long as the government isn't able to get in the way of doing so, is probably more interesting. >In the terms of the lawyers--from what I picked up during my time on the >Cyberial list--a requirement that words be rated before they can be >distributed would not pass Constitutional muster. This does not mean that >one's words will not trigger prosecutions, lawsuits, treason trials, etc. >What it means is that "prior restraint" is frowned upon (recall "The >Progressive" H-bomb case of about 15 years ago, where a court subjected >this magazine to prior restraint...a rare occurrence, later overturned. A >more recent case involves "Business Week," and is still unresolved). I may check with a lawyer myself on this issue. I had known that prior restraint, as in restraining something from being published at all, was considered unconstitutional by all but the nut-case authoritarians. But I had thought that the question of rating was still up in the air - the TV industry seems to have decided not to fight the V-chip in court, for instance. Since the government seems to have decided that it can remove "indecent" material, as judged by them, from the purview of minors, it could argue that a mandated rating system is the "least restrictive" way to do so - ignoring that others can use it for further restrictions. >By the way, who does the rating in this scenario? As others have also >noted, if I am rating my own pages, and rate them as "suitable for all >ages," but Jesse Helms disagrees, what charges can be filed? That I was not >a good enough judge of the material? That my opinions differed from Senator >Helms'? Well, I and Senator Helms have differing views on what is "obscene" and what isn't - and a court is more likely to go with his (prevailing community norms and all that nonsense) in deciding whether to prosecute me. >"Voluntary self-rating" runs into problems, such as this example. One is >left with ratings by _others_, e.g.. ratings boards, and even then there >are variations of this same problem. The "Lesbian Alliance" is going to >have different ideas of what children should be exposed to than the >"Christian Crusade" will ideas about. Who is right? ("What is truth?") There's also the lawsuit issue. If somebody decides that I haven't rated my words high enough to keep "indecent" material from their children, they may sue - and "community norms" will be used to decide. >> D. The government in a country such as China uses rating systems to >>help them filter. >Doesn't have much to do with _my_ words or pages. It ain't the business of >the U.S. court system--which is what we're talking about here--to worry >about what some Maoists think is proper for young cadres to read. I was discussing what was ethical for the proponents of rating systems to do, not what they should be _allowed_ to do. In other words, I am in favor of allowing anyone who wishes to create a rating system, just as I am in favor of allowing anyone who wishes to talk a bunch of utter trash about Holocaust Revisionism. But I wish to discourage people from doing either (or at least in the first case from creating systems that can be misused in such an obvious fashion). >I disagree with the overall conclusions of this line of reasoning. (Though >the "children are not the property of their parents" point is heavy >phrasing, and hard to take issue with directly, due to the language.) I use it as the anarcho-capitalists do who claim that taxation is theft. It gets the attention. I am angered by modern trends in favor of _either_ parental (parents deciding their kids shouldn't learn about evolution, or about sex) or societal (curfews et al). I am also angered by cases like the Joey Buttafuocco (sp?) one, in which he was convicted for having sex with a (definitely willing) minor who was decided to be sufficiently competent to be tried as an adult for committing murder. I had a set of decidedly overprotective parents myself, and I can trace lots of psychological damage from that. They did it out of love, but sometimes that just doesn't work. >In any case, while children are not for their parents to do with as they >please, a reasonable Schelling point has been that I will not force other >parents to expose their children to the teachings of Cthulhu if they will >not demand that my children sit through propaganda tapes about the joys of >homosexual sex. The status of children in a free society is a thorny issue, >but I reject the increasingly-prevalent notion that society knows what's >best and the government will decide what influences can be used with >children. A society which takes away this parental choice is a terrible >society. I tend to conclude that neither parents nor "society" should have any more reign over their children than absolutely necessary. Parents have certain rights over their children which derive from their responsibilities over those children - i.e., to keep those children safe, get them educated so they can have freedoms like speech and press, et al. If the parent can't clearly show that the intervention into the child's life isn't necessary for that responsibility to be fulfilled, then the parent shouldn't be able to do that intervention any more than I should be able to claim that the CO2 being put out by a factory is harming me, and should be stopped, without a lot of evidence otherwise. >I see much of the debate about violence and sex in society and in the media >as being this kind of "battle for the hearts and minds" of children. I >don't want some sociologist telling me that "Terminator II" is "bad" for my >child but that "The Story of O" should be mandatory for my 11-year-old to >watch. I agree about the "mandatory" part; I simply want to make it an option for that child - not an option for the parent. -Allen

1 0