December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

San Diego CPunk Physical meet this Thursday
by Christian Claborne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- This Wednesday!!! San Diego Area CPUNKS symposium Wednesday, Sep. 24, 1997. Topic: What action do we take if the situation get's out of hand (See message below from Mark H. below). It is my belief that any group, no matter how small, can accomplish great things if they apply themselves. Cypherpunks are not just "users", they poses several additional quanta of the stuff that enables creative thought, and skill. Don't forget to bring your public key fingerprint. If you can figure out how to get it on the back of a business card, that would be cool. If you want the suspicious crowd there to sign your key, bring two forms of ID. Place: The Mission Cafe & Coffee Shop 3795 Mission Bl in Mission Beach. 488-9060 Time:1800 Their Directions: 8 west to Mission Beach Ingram Exit Take west mission bay drive Go right on Mission Blvd. On the corner of San Jose and mission blvd. It is located between roller coaster and garnett. It's kind of 40s looking building... funky looking (their description, not mine) They serve stuff to eat, coffee stuff, and beer + wine stuff. See you there! New guy, bring your fingerprint. Drop me a note if you plan to attend... 2 -- C -- - ------------------------ Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 16:04:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Hedges <hedges(a)infonex.com> To: all-at-infonex(a)infonex.com Subject: federal cryptography legislation Sender: owner-all-at-infonex(a)infonex.com - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A bill called "SAFE" (HR-695, "Security and Freedom with Encryption") in the U.S. House of Representatives would have allowed U.S. software companies to export strong cryptography, and would have promoted privacy in all U.S. communications. Cryptography is mathematical means of making a message secret. Now, this bill has been rewritten to introduce more restrictive cryptography legislation than ever before seen in the U.S. Public support for cryptography use and export is very strong, as evidenced by the California state legislature's unanimous vote 9/5/97, calling on Congress and the President to revise and relax export laws (SJR-29). Companies world-wide already produce strong cryptograpy software, and U.S. buisness is rapidly losing ground in the world-wide software and telecommunications market. The House National Security Committee this week voted to continue export restrictions in the SAFE bill and to install "key escrow" proposals of the defense and intelligence organizations. This would not only continue the status quo legislation, it would strictly regulate and restrict domestic use of cryptography, an unprecedented act. Key escrow legislation in SAFE would mandate government "back doors" in all communications software before the end of the millennia in the United States, imposing criminal penalties for use of secure cryptography. Effectively, every citizen would be required to give law enforcement involuntary and transparent access to all communications, including financial, business, and personal messages. Key escrow also exposes all U.S. communication to a single point of failure, which a hacker, spy, or corrupt official could exploit to gain access to all personal, industry, and financial information. More information is available in our most recent press release. Press releases can be viewed at http://www.anonymizer.com/press/. Please, call your congressional representatives and senators and encourage them to oppose restrictive legislation on cryptography and mandated government access to all communications. Names and phone numbers for your local legislators can be obtained from www.house.gov and www.senate.gov. Sincerely, Mark Hedges Anonymizer Inc. Infonex Internet Inc. - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBNBnJhBVo2SUWMp6NAQFyNQP/UuogfBfcjRw7q5rda8+1BrGkMEHpixau J7JfbhKyv5yWdPZsnh8F3m/kaUahLEaSdLCcmAJzbroKApGBjUtT6bRacOtVps3X TzZXLO2NZd4UBsksUC1f3WWnnRl8+03jiQMboSpBvUVmHqA1sFiz3OQpJVWv1yge jEEk7R2Maeg= =VrfI - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNCRRAIP1MBWQ+9udAQHNuAf/Wf/vf7O7A3iZhd9BjlzyI0FvcOTelUOs 5JhxXN0w86YWzoluZue8jY7uKmxGVuySdikQSw4OxLS5wZG05nByoIQlhlzLPYIl vrQuQZ0EeGIOycwS7IuNLFFyx+C1E7HxcdX0UR3qMDgEiiFb09DlcuDHeSp52RZW s6t7AFR7ZoVz28KanihgDRQdk9QTw0HuaZV3hHNl11610HaPURRe4SX7zgR1cHAf naoTZI70GqVoUVYVrm+oVHln7HsdFqnrO/1GAVpLzKpEnzfT9C0d0o7T4t/WX4CM yeeO2UZUwfg01VyCHORpFYbx1SrFlW4rZNZqOJMP2lA2cNDZBsLrhg== =/sWk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ... __o .. -\<, Claborne(a)CYBERTHOUGHT.com ...(*)/(*)._ Providing thoughts on your computing needs. http://www.CYBERTHOUGHT.com/cyberthought/ PGP Pub Key fingerprint = 7E BF 38 3F 24 A7 D1 B0 54 44 96 AA 10 D0 5D 51 Avail on Pub Key server. PGP-encrypted e-mail welcome! Dreams. They are just a "screen saver" for the brain.

2 1

OCT_pus
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

5-6-96. Time: "Master of the Game. The formidable John Deutch is becoming the most powerful CIA chief ever." This power didn't fall accidentally into Deutch's lap; he has lobbied hard for it. While he mouthed technocratic demurrals before the Senate committee, promising not to be too "intrusive" and humbly noting that "my Cabinet colleagues have concerns about how future DCI's would, over the long term, play a role in this concurrence," it was clearly time for the winner to take all. The CIA is already upgrading many of its techniques: breaking into computer systems, intercepting faxes, experimenting with dead drops in cyberspace to receive secrets. The big-ticket spending that is out of control has been satellites. The CIA wants to build $1 billion-apiece "8X" spy satellites to photograph targets, even though it has sitting in warehouses about half a dozen satellites that have the capacity to take pictures for the next decade. But satellites may simply not be that useful. A secret CIA study recently concluded that satellites provide less than 10% of the valuable signal intelligence collected from such rogue states as Iraq and Iran. Most such data are scooped up by ground stations or via phone taps. There is deep anxiety at Langley that Deutch's grab for power is designed to advance his own career. OCT_pus ----- William Safire adds to this in 5-6-96 NYT: www.nytimes.com.

1 0

Re: Key
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 5 May 1996, Lance Cottrell wrote: > Why did you decide to create this additional key. What role are you > reserving the other one for? It's more convenient for me to sign on a multi-user system. As I don't want to compromise my main key, a lower security document signing key would seem in order. Feel free to copy this to the list. --- My preferred and soon to be permanent e-mail address:unicorn@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 Opp. Counsel: For all your expert testimony needs: jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

FIPS for KMI
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's worth looking closely at the Cryptography Key Recovery System (CKRS) documents published recently as part of the FIPS KMI program. A meeting is scheduled next month. See the listing of the August Meeting reports at: http://csrc.nist.gov/tacdfipsfkmi/ They show how far the key recovery program has advanced.

1 0

hey
by FARTNOC69＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

well i am a carder well i cant card because i have used all of my drop sites.. i can sell laps 4 top dollar so get back 2 me if u need some one 2 sell stuff!l8erz

2 1

Re: [History] USPS tried to monopolize email? (c. 1981)
by Erik E. Fair 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The U.S. Postal Service's first attempt at E-mail was called "E-COM" (ca. 1984), and it amounted to an electronic submission system for mail that would then be printed, stuffed into envelopes, and delivered in the usual way - but done so at the regional centers. It was geared toward 3rd class mass mailings, and was a dismal failure. While it was cheaper than standard 3rd class mailings, the mailings were output on Printronix dot-matrix line printers, and they looked terrible. Who knows? If they'd invested in laser printers instead... Some of you who were on the UUCP/USENET at the time may remember a small company on the UUCP network in Rockville, MD called "netword", which would accept E-mail for E-COM and deliver it for free; the deal was that the input batches to E-COM had to be of a certain size, and the "netword" folks rounded out their batches with the stuff from the net. Eventually, E-COM was sold (I seem to recall the Netword people bidding on it), and it disappeared shortly thereafter. I know about this story because Netword was a customer of another company which has also since disappeared: Dual Systems of Berkeley, California, makers of a Motorola 68000-based, Version 7 (and later System V) UNIX system on the S-100 (IEEE-696) bus. I worked for Dual from March '83 to June '85 - my first job out of college. Erik Fair fair(a)clock.org

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by loki＠infonex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One should also note that the surplus beyond subsistence was much smaller at that time. A more useful figure might be the percent tax on surplus. If the serf was taxed at 10%, but only had a 5% surplus above survival needs, then he was in a difficult position. Unfortunately I see no chance of an agreement on how to define surplus. -Lance At 7:20 AM 5/6/96, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: >At 11:16 PM 5/5/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> SANDY SANDFORT >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >>C'punks, >> >>On Sun, 5 May 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> >>> didn't the feudal vassels only pay 33% ? >> >>Actually, no. When I used to edit a magazine, I commissioned an >>article about how much "tax" slaves, serfs, etc. paid. That is, >>how much of what they produced, did they get to keep; how much >>went to their masters. The surprising, cross-cultural answer my >>researcher/writer found was that they got to keep everthing they >>produced except 5-10%. That's a lot better, percentage-wise, >>than for modern "tax slaves." > > >In the early feudal period, ordinary knights did not live well. >They were only moderately better off than peasants, and yet to support one >knight, you needed a startlingly large number of peasants, a fact >that kings were continually unhappy about and continually trying >to fix. > >While it is difficult to assess the tax rate, because taxes were >in kind, it was clearly very low by modern standards. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > | >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 ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Rep. Loretta Sanchez Hits Crypto Controls
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Sanchez statement is from House Report 105-108, Part 3, published September 12 by the National Security Committee, which describes the Weldon-Dellums amendment to SAFE. See the full report at: http://jya.com/hr105-108-pt3.htm The report includes a cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Officefor implementing SAFE. However, as far as I can tell, the estimate does not include the cost of a GAK system, and covers only the cost of export controls. Thus, it appears to be vastly misleading. SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ Many of us when we think of encryption imagine the ``ENIGMA'' code breaking machines of World War Two or the American Indian ``code talkers'' that helped us anticipate and defeat Nazi and Imperial Japanese attacks. Those methods were mechanical or human-based, and often depended on simple arithmetical slight of hand to trick the enemy. Today, encryption is complex mathematical algorithms that have become an entirely new branch of mathematics involving intense academic study. Until recently encryption was limited to governments and large companies through U.S. export limitations and by the limitations of existing hardware and software technologies. All that began to change as the desktop computer became more prevalent and the computing power available to the average user jumped by leaps and bounds every year. When discussing the power of the PC observers of the information technology industry often predict that the computing power of microprocessors would double roughly every 18 months. Because of this the rapidly developing speed and growth of computers, the age of the ``unbreakable code'' has long since passed. Manufacturers of encryption technology are engaged in a rapidly accelerating race to develop the newest and strongest code that can withstand attacks from the increasingly powerful computers of the day. And it isn't just big companies and governments that have the technology to break codes. Last January, a graduate student broke a 40-bit code in just three- and-a-half hours, the toughest code form American companies at the time were allowed to export. Today, American companies are the world leaders in encryption technology, but other companies and nations are catching up. Strong encryption products and knowledge about the science of cryptography is not limited to the United States. A savvy computer user anywhere in the world can with just a few clicks of the mouse find U.S. export-embargoed encryption. Many freelancing code hackers maintain off-shore Internet meeting sites to discuss the newest holes in encryption products. The proposed export controls which the Administration argues helps to keep strong encryption out of the hands of foreign adversaries will have little or no effect. Strong encryption is available abroad and US companies are being put at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. With this bleak and seemingly hopeless picture in mind how do we protect ourselves from the threat of rogue nations and other adversaries cloaking their communications from American National Security efforts? The only viable solution is through supporting a robust and aggressively competitive cryptography industry in the United States. We must ensure that the United States continues to maintain the deepest pool of cryptographic experts in the world. American export limitations will only serve to create a brain drain of these precious resources as leading scientists leave our shores for more lucrative and accommodating surroundings. All of us care about our national security and no one wants to make it any easier for criminals and terrorists to commit criminal acts. But we must also recognize encryption technologies as an increasingly sharp double-edged sword. It can also aid law enforcement and protect national security by limiting the threat of industrial espionage and foreign spying, but only when Americans are able to produce the sharpest swords and the strongest encryption. I would also like to state for the record that for the reasons stated above, I do not support the Dellums-Weldon Amendment to H.R. 695, and would have voted against it. Loretta Sanchez. ----------

3 2

Arguments _against_ privacy, anyone?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 6-MAY-1996 01:21:22.00 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Sun, 5 May 96 02:28 PDT From: privacy(a)vortex.com (PRIVACY Forum) Subject: PRIVACY Forum Digest V05 #10 PRIVACY Forum Digest Sunday, 5 May 1996 Volume 05 : Issue 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Call for bad arguments against privacy In my online newsletter, The Network Observer, I periodically summarize and rebut bad arguments against a broad right to privacy. At the end of this message I've included a partial list of the arguments I have discussed so far. I would like to gather another batch of arguments, probably for the July 1996 issue of TNO, and I am hoping that you can help me. Please send me any bad arguments against privacy rights that you have encountered, even if you can't quite figure out what's wrong with them, and even if you don't have a specific example ready to hand. Arguments concerning specific issues such as government records, medical privacy, and video surveillance are particularly welcome. Once I finish this next set of arguments and rebuttals, I'll gather the whole set into a "handbook" that can be distributed freely on the Internet. Thanks very much. Phil Agre Encl: The Network Observer can be found on the Web at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/tno.html The privacy articles can be found indexed a little ways down the page. Here are most of the arguments that I have discussed in past issues: * "We've lost so much of our privacy anyway." * "Privacy is an obsolete Victorian hang-up." * "Ideas about privacy are culturally specific and it is thus impossible to define privacy in the law without bias." * "We have strong security on our data." * "National identity cards protect privacy by improving authentication and data security." * "Informational privacy can be protected by converting it into a property right." * "We have to balance privacy against industry concerns." * "Privacy paranoids want to turn back the technological clock." * "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent trade-offs between functionality and privacy." * "Our lives will inevitably become visible to others, so the real issue is mutual visibility, achieving a balance of power by enabling us to watch the people who are watching us." * "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous that it provides no useful guidance for action." * "People *want* these systems, as indicated by the percentage of them who sign up for them once they become available." * "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of a democratic society." * "Privacy regulation is just one more category of government interference in the market, which after all is much better at weighing individuals' relative preferences for privacy and everything else than bureaucratic rules could ever be." * "There's no privacy in public." * "We favor limited access." * "Privacy in these systems has not emerged as a national issue." [ Submissions that would be interesting to the general readership of the PRIVACY Forum would also be very welcome here. -- MODERATOR ] ------------------------------ End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 05.10 ************************

1 0

Re: Nando.net on expatriate tax issue
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 29-APR-1996 02:16:40.69 >On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > >Billionaires' tax loophole could complicate passage of health reform >What precisely does this reporter think is being "tightened" in his or her >version of the House bill? (Note that in current law there is no $500,000 >floor). In fact the reporter hasn't bothered to describe what the >provision really does. (Imposes a expatriation is taxable event >analysis). Talk about a snow job. I won't say it is or is not advertant, >but it's bloody annoying. Fascinating. One wonders how the House managed to convince the CBO that it would gain money... it did. > >The House version would be extremely difficult to enforce and would allow > >patient expatriates to avoid the tax by holding their assets for 10 years > >before selling, they say. In the interim, they could raise cash by > >borrowing against the assets. >Which is the law today. What is with this guy? Get your facts straight >media. I have relatives who went to journalism school during the Depression. I begin to see why they complain about modern media, and why Heinlein said that Time _never_ got the story right on anything he saw in person. Modern journalism schools are going more and more to communication theory courses as opposed to how to write and how to get the facts straight. -Allen

1 0