December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Bernstein ruling meets the virus law
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:05 PM 4/20/96, Bruce Marshall wrote: >On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> It should be interesting to see what happens when the Bernstein ruling >> (assuming it is further upheld as the court case and appeals proceed) meets >> the proposed law making the writing of virus code a crime. >> >> If crypto software is essentially speech, albeit in a non-traditional >> human language, then virus software is no different. > > I think the determination of whether virus software will be >considered free speech (and thus legal) or speech needing limits >(illegal) will be based entirely on whether that code is active in system >memory or just sitting on a hard drive. I of course was being careful to specifically say "the proposed law making the writing of virus code a crime." I think most of us will agree that destroying someone else's data via viruses may well be a crime, depending on circumstances. However, the talk of trying to felonize the _writing_ of virus code, irrespective of whether it is ever used criminally, is what I think the Bernstein decision bears on. --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

ApacheSSL
by Sean A. Walberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An ISP that I have ties with is looking to set up a secure server. Currently, they are running Apache. I told them that for ~$500 they can put on Apache SSL and be all ready. However, they want to buy Netscape (for the name, I've already given them the 40bit gospel), put it on a separate, firewalled machine, allow no access to it, etc, etc. Is all this paranoia necessary? Sean =================] Will work for RAM [================== | Sean A. Walberg | PGP key | C programmers | | Computer Engineering ][ | on | do it in | | umwalber(a)cc.umanitoba.ca | servers | libraries! | =============] http://www.escape.ca/~sean [=============

2 1

Re: Wiretapping v warrants
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:42 AM 4/20/96 -0500, Bruce Marshall wrote: >On Fri, 19 Apr 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> Here's a question, however: What, exactly, stands between the way it is >> supposedly done, today, and wiretapping with none of these "protections." > > First and foremost Congress, But were these "protections" the product of a law passed by Congress? > then the Judicial system I'm feeling much better....NOT! >and finally the people themselves. It's called "Right to Keep and Bear Arms." >> And another question I've never seen a satisfactory answer for: Why is >> there not an automatic policy to inform the person tapped, at least after >> the tap is removed, analogous to the level of information the victim of a >> search warrant normally gets? > > Since I'm not exactly sure whether the targets of a wiretap are ever >informed that their conversations were monitored if they aren't later >prosecuted using the info gained through the wiretap, I couldn't really >comment on why if that is the case. The reason you don't know is simply that there is no _Constitutional_ reason. There is merely a practical one: The act of wiretapping does not automatically inform those tapped, in the same way that service of a search warrant does, so the government CONVEEEENIENTLY forgets to tell them. Most government suck-ups don't even want to address this issue; they have no explanation. Unlike them, you acknowledged that you weren't away of the reason why. > Personally, I think a better example could be used. When a person is >placed under visual surveilance they also are uninformed that their >actions are being scrutinized. Their conversations can be picked up >using high powered microphones and they can be plainly seen with >binoculars or even night vision goggles. I would assume that they >probably aren't informed after the fact either unless the surveilance is >used against them in court. I seem to recall a news item from Washington state within the last couple of years in which a conviction was thrown out because evidence was obtained with thermal-IR imagers. You know, look for the hot house and it's being used to grow pot. Problem is, that kind of viewing is not normally publicly apparent, so a citizen has a reasonable belief that it can't be used against him. In another case, in Oregon, the use of night-vision goggles to observe people (at least in collecting evidence) was thrown out, for the same reason: Even if, arguably, people were out "in public," they had a reasonable expectation that they would not be observed if they were careful to remain in the dark. One more thing: Until about 1968, the private use of tiny recording microphones, in public, was essentially unlimited. About that year, in many states, it was restricted. (In some states it's illegal to record conversations by surreptitious means, EVEN IF you're a party to that conversation. How bizarre!) My theory is that politicians recognized, correctly, that they would be the ones most subject to such recording, and since they engaged in incriminating (bribery) conversations fairly regularly, they didn't want lobbyists to be able to collect a series of recorded conversations that could later be used against the politician if they later fell out of favor. > Regardless, I think that if people aren't informed that they were the >subject of an investigation after they are cleared, they should be. >Bruce Marshall The reason I consider "the system" to be so crooked is that it tries to get away with things like this whenever it can. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: 5th protect password?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:33 PM 4/19/96 -0800, Roger Schlafly wrote: >Is this really an issue? I am not an expert, but I just read a >Supreme Court case: > > DOE v. United States, 487 U.S. 201; 108 S. Ct. 2341 (1988) > >It involved someone who was ordered by the court to consent to the >Cayman Islands bank to turn over account records. The Supreme >Court said yes, because it is "more like 'be[ing] forced to >surrender a key to a strongbox containing incriminating documents' >than it is like 'be[ing] compelled to reveal the combination to >[petitioner's] wall safe.'" > >The quote refers to Stevens' dissent, which said: > > A defendant can be compelled to produce material evidence that > is incriminating. Fingerprints, blood samples, voice > exemplars, handwriting specimens, or other items of physical > evidence may be extracted from a defendant against his will. As you might expect, I see a problem (and a pattern!) with even these examples. Notice that with the possible exception of "handwriting specimens", the examples above all represent pieces of evidence whose utility was only made technologically possible by developments done more than a century after the writing of the Constitution. Fingerprints have only come into use in this century, voiceprints only in the last 30 or so years, blood samples were only uniquely identifiable within the last 10-15 or so, etc. I think even graphology (handwriting analysis) for legal purposes is likewise comparatively recent, although there is no obvious technological reason which this should have been so. The last category, "other items of physical evidence" is too unspecific to interpret. The problem? Well, with the exception of the polygraph (whose reliability is severely (!) in doubt), I can't think of another technology which has been denied to cops by refusing their insistence on being given evidence. The implication, unfortunately, is that whereever a new technology pops up, the courts regularly ignore the fifth amendment, finding some excuse to insist that a defendant provide evidence. This really isn't surprising: Remember, the Constitution was written by _revolutionaries_, while the infringements on that Constitution are done by _bureaucrats_. Any bureaucratic interpretation of the Constitution is inherently flawed; the proper, "revolutionary" interpretation of the 5th amendment is that a defendant should in no way be required to cooperate with the prosecution if the results of that cooperation could conceivably be used to convict him. Anyone who denies this should be required to make a list of the kinds of evidence which was regularly demanded of a 1783-era defendant. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: EFF/Bernstein Press Release
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:46 4/19/96, Alan Olsen wrote: >I have been seening a surprising amount of rant from the forces of >Government about keeping information out of "the hands of terrorists". I am >wondering how this is going to be brought about. The books are there. They >can be ordered from a number of mail order firms. They can also be found in >used book stores across the country. The information is alos on the net, on >cd-roms and other mediums of storage. How are they going to stuff the >tentacles back into the can? Trivial. Publish a book -> Ten years. Sell a book -> Ten years. Sell CDROM -> Ten years. Publish on the net (at this time US only, but identical campaigns are underway in just about any country with a decent net connection) -> Ten years. Won't stop the hard core terrorist, but will keep the general population from taking action once they finally realize what is going on. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer, DigiCash, Inc. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

OS/2 encryption utilities
by mirele＠xmission.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Due to the fact that I have been threatened by the Church of Scientology with legal action if I do not cease and desist posting encheferated parodies of their secret scripture (per a letter I received from Cult attorneys via Federal Express today) I am in search of OS/2 disk encryption programs. If you can help, please respond asap with suggestions. Thank you, Deana M. Holmes mirele(a)xmission.com -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GAT d- s++ a C++ U P L E- W++ N++ o-- K++ w--- O++ PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP+ t 5 X-- R- tv-- b++ DI++ D++ G e++++ h+ r* x++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

3 3

Re: Bernstein ruling meets the virus law
by Computer Virus Help Desk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:08 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Tim May wrote: > >It should be interesting to see what happens when the Bernstein ruling >(assuming it is further upheld as the court case and appeals proceed) meets >the proposed law making the writing of virus code a crime. > >If crypto software is essentially speech, albeit in a non-traditional >human language, then virus software is no different. To the best of our knowledge simply writing Virus Code including it's "distribution" is not a crime in the United States. However, the deliberate, malicious upload or infection of another's computer or system is a crime in many states. The writing and or distribution of Computer Viruses is a crime in some European countries. We don't see the "Bernstein" ruling as having an effect in the U.S. one way or the other. Virus Code seems to be treated just like "speech" right now. Use "it" to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and see what happens. Deliberately and maliciously infect another's computer or system with a computer virus and see what happens. What proposed law making writing virus code a crime were you referring to ?

1 0

Georgia Legislation - Remailer Effect???
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 T have included copy of text from c/net about a bill passed in the Georgia legislature. It would definately impact remailer service. Location of the remailers might fall in with the Arkansas (or was it Tennessee) BBS/Porno case. The URL is at: http://www.cnet.com/Content/News/Files/0,16,1144,00.html Article follows - --------------------------------- Georgia OKs "Net Police" law By Rose Aguilar April 19, 1996, 5 p.m. PST A bill signed into law this week by Georgia Governor Zell Miller has sparked yet another firestorm over what role the government should take in curbing the Internet and whether legislators are sufficiently techno-savvy to make considered judgments. House Bill 1630 was introduced on February 8 by Georgia House of Representatives member Don Parsons (R-Marietta). The bill makes it illegal to falsely identify yourself or place a registered trademark or logo on your home page. The bill also makes it illegal for email users to have addresses that don't include their own names. For example, an individual who sets up a site that gives the appearance of representing a government agency by using a state seal could be sued by the state. Also, "vanity" email addresses like jackpot(a)luckynumber.com purchased from a new service called VanityMail.com are now illegal in the state of Georgia. If someone is sued under the new law, the court will decide the penalties. Parsons says he drafted the bill to solve the problem of online impersonation. "Back in the winter I started hearing about home pages through the news that offer remedies and health related services. To the untrained eye the pages make it appear that the information provided is valid and could be some kind of remedy," Parsons said. "After some thought and research I decided to present the bill." The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a civil liberties organization devoted to technology-related issues, says the bill could undermine one of the essential benefits of the Net: the ability to link information posted to one site with related information posted to another. "The way the bill is written states that you can't put a button on your homepage that says, 'Click here to go to Wired magazine.'" If Wired is copyrighted I would be under violation if I didn't have their permission. Instead, I would have to say, 'Click here to go to this cool magazine,'" said Shari Steel, a staff attorney with the EFF. Parsons retorts back that the foundation is misinterpreting the bill. "The EFF is reading something into the bill which just isn't there. The bill has nothing to do with links. The bill is about using a name or a trademark to represent your page as being someone else's," he said. The problem is that the wording of the law leaves it open to multiple interpretations, according to the EFF. "He created a very vague law that could very well make everyone on the Internet a criminal," said Steel. Furthermore, the EFF is accusing Parsons of introducing the bill to help his employer, Bell South, win a lawsuit. Bell South announced this week that it has filed a suit against startup company "realpages.com" in a battle over domain names on the Internet. Realpages.com designs and maintains Web pages for other businesses. Bell South, however, has a trademark on the term The Real Yellow Pages for its printed directories and claims that this extends to a trademark on the "realpages.com" domain name for the Net. The Baby Bell wants to use "realpages.com" because "Realyellowpages.com" is too long. "This [bill] has been masterminded by Bell South. It's obvious, considering that the legislator who wrote the bill is a Bell South employee," said Stanton McCandlish, an online activist with the EFF. "This bill would give Bell South the victory that they want, but probably aren't going to get in court. Bell South is going to lose that case and lose big," he said. Parsons confirms that he works for Bell South but denies the charge. "The Bell South Corporation has no interest in this bill. I don't even think the cases are the same," Parsons said. "I put this bill together long before that case and they are totally separate," he said. Whatever Parsons' motivations, even some other Georgia representatives agree that he managed to get a bill passed with potential negative repercussions for the use of the Internet. "Many legislators are afraid of technology and they fear the power of information and the Internet, especially the Internet in the power of the voters and that's a nationwide problem," said Representative Mitchell Kaye (R-Marietta). Kaye is the Web master of a site called the Conservative Policy Caucus (CPC), which posts information about House activities from the viewpoint of the conservative legislative caucus. During debate over his bill, Parsons referred to the CPC site as an example of one that passes itself off as an official government site. Kaye says that Parsons is wrong about the CPC site and that it will be unaffected by the bill. But he's still concerned about the potential dampening affect that it will have on the use of the Internet in Georgia. "I'm concerned about the bigger page of the Internet," said Kaye. "The bottom line is that this is an unconstitutional infringement upon free speech and literally puts Georgia in the same category as communist China." Ridiculous, says Parsons. "I would never want to restrict anybody's freedom of speech, but I believe that end users have some right to know who is behind what they are looking at," he said. The passage of the law has since sparked conversation on Steve Outing's online-news mailing list. Copyright =A9 1996 c|net inc. all rights reserved - ---------------------------- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMXlW3hKvccEAmlQ9AQFTSAf+PuyHzI8sOFcye0hCpMrY0I8lWD9CLJcW KsD+2hfFAfjjRsA5YzB2LWhfZ2JfGrzwFibHrX4nc+qlDpZmECOipAdmDLf5/EmA 149YGLbLmn/E44BcsJK2MCFluASonON9HADZGrvr8IYDumRde7ycIshx3+YZ7KwL Ix4g+PsIP1mzRGTi0kkBgJL7/m6g7xY/QH0XPSZZEbiFSBXIFusYQ/YZCCH5JLUa VaGgWURRNnwz3eDHgfW0Ck+ES4HNV2yXDR5IQ/IL3fufZOjt2NCczomr29ebWJ9I IvXYQVZv8I+Wsus/YisgOA0Hz1VoNPdiUQgUPf4gO0MAEgo/9Ai1yw== =INB6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT--CONFERENCE REPORT was: EFF/Bernstein Press Release
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:59 PM 4/19/96 -0700, Bill Frantz wrote: >Real terrorists receive instruction at terrorism schools run by >organizations like the Iranians, the PLO, and even the US government (CIA, >Special Forces etc.) The rate of technology transfer is much greater with >hands-on teaching than it is with literature in e.g. libraries or the net. That's because most people are not autodidactic. You have to teach them in person and pound their heads in. Some like Ted K. do OK at self teaching, however. In addition, "teachers" can use the net for research and pick up lots of interesting info. They always could pick it up, though. DCF

1 0

Re: [EVENT] cheap date w/Bob Dole
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>"Public Policy Issues Forum on Information Security" >(aka "Celebration of 20 years of Public Key Cryptography" 1976-1996) > >Co-Hosts: > Cylink Corporation > The Churchill Club [stuff deleted] > - Senator(s) Larry Pressler (and Bob Dole?*) >on new legislation (The Encryption Communications Privacy Act of 1996) to >loosen restrictions on strong crypto in the U.S. What, exactly, are the "restrictions on strong crypto in the U.S.? > - Senator Conrad Burns (R/Montana) >on his proposed bill (Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era) >which could include preventing government from becoming an escrow registry >bureau. I'm _still_ waiting to see the text of this bill. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0