December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re[2]: "STOP SENDING ME THIS SHIT"
by Adam Pingitore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've got news for you all. This 'jerk' was spammed by some ass out there. I've canceled by subscription so would you all quit whining already. Sorry if I sent you people inappropriate mail, but I just wasn't very happy getting 2000 e-mails a day.

2 1

Re: i want off
by droelke＠rdxsunhost.aud.alcatel.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > > can someone help me off this mailing list > > Mathew Ellman > > (DEAL WITH IT) > > 15 N WASHINGTON ST APT 1 > > VALPARAISO IN 46383 > > Smooth move. You just published your home address to about 1000 people, > all of whom are suspected of being involved in a nation-wide moon pie > theft clique. Expect weirdness. Ignore the knocks on your door late at > night. Do not feed or water the on-going Cypherpunks meeting and party > that is about to manifest itself in your front yard. If you do, they'll > never go away. > > [...] Check out http://catalog.savvy.com/ for added juvenile fun with this person. ;-) Dan ------------------------------------------------------------------ Dan Oelke Alcatel Network Systems droelke(a)aud.alcatel.com Richardson, TX

1 0

Re: Bernstein case decisision (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:00 PM 4/17/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote: >reposted with permission. > >A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 05:23:47 -0400 >>From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)well.com> >The following summary is from my colleague Shari Steele: > >What Judge Patel said. >First, the judge ruled that Bernstein could bring his case even though the >Arms Export Control Act specifically precludes judicial review, because what >we are asking the judge to review (i.e., the constitutionality of the >statute and its regulations) was not what had been precluded (i.e., the >government's determination in a particular instance whether or not something >was exportable). "With respect to constitutional questions, the judicial >branch not only possesses the requisite expertise to adjudicate these >issues, it is also the best and final interpreter of them." [stuff deleted] >The judge, therefore, did not throw out any of our claims (the ITAR acts as >a prior restraint on speech, the ITAR is overbroad, and the ITAR is vague). >She looked at each of them one by one and determined that each of them had >merit. > >What this decision means. >Most directly, it means that we can continue on with our lawsuit. The >government had brought a motion to dismiss the case, contending that the >court lacked jurisdiction to hear this matter because it was a matter of >national security. The judge struck that down and said that we can go >forward with our suit. > >More indirectly, the judge's ruling sets the stage for us winning at trial. >She clearly "gets it," and isn't intimidated by the government's use of >precedential cases that aren't on point. It looks like this judge is well on her way to throwing out the portion of ITAR which deals with software of all kinds, not merely digitized source code originally from books. That's progress, of a sort. I'm still waiting to see what that "Burns bill" will be all about. Since that bill is supposed to deal directly with the issues this judge has already shown sense on, I think that this bill ought to be no less generous with computer software exports than an anticipated court decision WRT ITAR will be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Re[2]: "STOP SENDING ME THIS SHIT"
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Perry E. Metzger > >Remedial english composition courses are available at virtually all >community colleges, and are a great help in making yourself understood >in writing. ....................................................................... Suvcrivers, Look Out - Perry is on a roll!!! (as he smiles quietly to himself.........) .. Blanc >

1 0

Fw: CWD-Pool Cool
by Lou Zirko 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thought some of you might enjoy this. I sure some of you have already read it, and if so, sorry for the excess noise. - -----Begin Included Message ----- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 05:34:40 -0700 From: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock(a)well.com> To: cwd-l(a)cyberwerks.com Cc: CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright (c) 1996 // Note: This is a re-issue of Dispatch. An earlier attempt to send to the CWD list was tanked by a glitch in the software. You may have seen this as reposted from another Newsgroup. If so, disregard and accept our apologies for the redundency; however, lots of CWD list subscribers have asked for this reposting and we are compl=07=01=D46=82 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMXVkqRKvccEAmlQ9AQHihwf7BItG4dpM564IQAUtbaQzFfjkJcfLvnrn 4OVJ98LgWEKa1mjqU728hp4g32lBfjYqcHC1Teh1vs4KTWSSM+Oz9fHA6NUNrgdX MgZkNqSqOx7J+QRfssIb9GgBoh/WA51cjU3r6LZcI4vviuTBx/+tBXkvmpDs3txS DJYKejwwKorOc3rq0Ro3BrSRDcC2aQdgkyetOwDA26uSC0tqp0OX2FLGi7XTmmqX mdE5gIs+OflImRBV23L+bTGy47C5qOQ5MaqYiSw5ka7360O1g5PHXZ/yCguyHCwd Dnx2hr4L7PbHi91Dg0EdYHUhyhRH9CFAm9xJ4Few5znrqI6kCqKAiw== =AcaM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Oklahoma City - One Year Later - The Coverup Continues !
by ssalgaller＠CCGATE.HAC.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Suggested Reading: Oklahoma City - The Suppressed Truth By Jon Rappoport Blue Ocean Press 2633 Lincoln Blvd., Suite #256 Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 243-9005 copyright 1995 $12 (post paid) At 9:02 AM on April 19, 1995, the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City was damaged in an explosion that also left 168 dead and 600 injured. If you look closer at this case, as investigative reporter Jon Rappoport has, you start asking some questions about the "official' story: The damage was supposedly caused when thousands of pounds of a fuel oil and fertilizer mixture was ignited in a truck parked near the building. Talk about "oil and water never mixing". This mixture would have to be either stirred or mixed just before use. It would also have to be detonated without any air spaces, such as the gaps between the fuel drums, in order to work. Even if the mixture detonated, it should leave traces of oil. none was found. Even if it detonated perfectly, the explosion was 3 times too weak to damage the building's reinforced concrete support columns. Especially column "B3". This column was sheared off at the 3rd floor level. Only a shaped charge placed directly on the column at that level would be able to cause this to happen. That section of the column was cut out and removed as evidence. Will we ever see it again at the trial ? Local seismometers noted *two* explosions, 10 seconds apart. This was "explained away" as reflections of the explosion by underlying rock strata. Ask a geologist if this sort of time delay has ever been observed before you decide if someone is "underlying". What ever happened to "John Doe #2", seen with Tim Mc Veigh that morning ? What happened to John Doe's #3 and #4, seen leaving the area soon after the explosion? Speaking of Tim, why (if the official story is true) did he advise the officer who stopped him that he had a concealed weapon ? Supposedly, he just killed 168 people, including 19 children. What's one more if it means he could get away ? And what about Terry Nichols ? He was advocating killing Federal employees at a public meeting in Estes, CO a year before the bombing. The FBI is very efficient, yet no one seems to have paid any attention to Terry to prevent loss of life. What about the reported financial links to the bombing, not from right wing causes, but from the Brittish Government ? Finally, what happens if and when the truth comes out in open court at Tim and Terry's trial ? One could guess that the real suppressed story will be one more casualty of the bombing. Unless we demand that someone explains column "B3". It *can* happen here - and it *did* a year ago ! Book "review" by Stephen S. salgaller(a)aol.com

3 2

[NOISE] Toast Fishing in America
by Dave Del Toasto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[from "If _____ Made Toasters" ...my edits] If The Rand Corporation made toasters... They would be large, perfectly smooth, seamless black cubes. Each morning, exactly as much toast as you could eat would appear on top of your toaster. Their service department would have an unlisted phone number and the cube's blueprints would be highly-classified government documents, but the "X-Files" would have an episode with a partially disassembled toaster remarkably similar to it visible in the background. If the NSA made toasters... Your toaster would have a secret crumb-door on the back that only the NSA could open in case they needed to inspect your toast for breakfasts of a national security nature.

1 0

EFF/Bernstein Press Release
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FEDERAL COURT DENIES GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BERNSTEIN CASE, ACKNOWLEDGES SOURCE CODE AS SPEECH April 17, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Counsel 301/375-8856, ssteele(a)eff.org Lori Fena, Executive Director 415/436-9333, lori(a)eff.org Denying the government's motion for dismissal in mathematician Daniel Bernstein's suit against the State Department, Judge Marilyn Patel in the Northern District of California ruled Monday that source code in Bernstein's cryptographic algorithm, "Snuffle," is speech that is protected from prior restraint by the First Amendment. LANDMARK RULING This is the first time a U.S. court has ruled that source code is speech under First Amendment analysis. Previously, courts have held that software is speech for copyright law only. The decision states in part: "This court can find no meaningful difference between computer language, particularly high-level languages as defined above, and German or French....Like music and mathematical equations, computer language is just that, language, and it communicates information either to a computer or to those who can read it....Thus, even if Snuffle source code, which is easily compiled into object code for the computer to read and easily used for encryption, is essentially functional, that does not remove it from the realm of speech....For the purposes of First Amendment analysis, this court finds that source code is speech." (The full text of the decision can be found at http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/Legal/Decision_041596/) Judge Patel's acknowledgment that source code enjoys Constitutional protection has implications that reach far beyond cases involving the export of cryptography. The decision holds importance to the future of secure electronic commerce and lays the groundwork needed to expand First Amendment protection to electronic communication. Because of its far-reaching implications, the Bernstein case is being watched closely not only by privacy advocates, but by the entire computer industry, the export and cryptography communities and First Amendment advocates. CASE WILL PROCEED The decision allows Bernstein to continue with his lawsuit that the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) acts as a prior restraint on speech and that the ITAR is overbroad and vague. EFF is very pleased with Judge Patel's ruling and believes that it bodes well for Bernstein's ultimate success in trial, which is now scheduled to proceed with the normal pre-trial and trial sequence of events. The court drew an important distinction between the Bernstein case and other cases involving export controls on cryptography. The government has cited several cases involving the Export Administration Act as reasons why the Bernstein case should be dismissed. Judge Patel recognized that the Constitutional questions being raised by Bernstein differ significantly from the policy questions raised in the cases introduced by the government. Judge Patel also ruled that Bernstein could bring his case even though the Arms Export Control Act specifically precludes judicial review, because what Bernstein is asking the court to review (i.e., the constitutionality of the statute and its regulations) was not what had been precluded (i.e., the government's determination in a particular instance whether or not something was exportable). "With respect to constitutional questions, the judicial branch not only possesses the requisite expertise to adjudicate these issues, it is also the best and final interpreter of them." CASE BACKGROUND As part of her decision, Judge Patel determined that only the source code was at issue in the case, not Bernstein's academic paper describing the source code. Bernstein tried to get the government to rule separately on the paper and the code back in 1993 by filing separate commodity jurisdiction requests. The State Department merged the requests and rejected them all. On June 29, 1995, after Bernstein and EFF filed suit, the government sent Bernstein a letter saying that the paper could be published and never had been forbidden. While Judge Patel claimed that the issue of the paper now appeared to be moot, she commented, "It is disquieting than an item defendants now contend could not be subject to regulation was apparently categorized as a defense article and subject to licensing for nearly two years, and was only reclassified after plaintiff initiated this action." THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION EFF, a non-profit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information, is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono legal counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and organized amicus briefs from members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. ###

1 0

Re: Re[2]: on corporations and subpoenas
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry Metzger wrote... > "Adam Pingitore" writes: > > Um, well, then I'm going to have to spam your ass. > > Not a finger raised. I will do nothing whatsoever to take you off this > mailing list. > > Have fun. > Oooh, oooh, can I have some Spam (TM) too?

1 0

java crypto packages
by Alex Strasheim 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The last time I looked, the coderpunks were talking about java crypto packages. Can anyone on that list tell me if any code has been made available? Unfortunately the archive is dead...

1 0