December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:40 PM 4/8/96 -0400, Declan B. McCullagh wrote: >Excerpts from internet.cypherpunks: 8-Apr-96 Re: Australia's New South >W.. by Mike Duvos(a)netcom.com >> I'd be interested to know if the courts have ever had a case in >> which a person has been declared to have been in "possession" of >> illegal material merely by virtue of its momentary presence in >> their cache, screen buffer, or usenet spool. >> >> There is a case now involving the University of Pittsburgh in >> which the Feds are attempting to prove that an individual was in >> possession of certain child porn images on his own PC during a >> brief span of time in 1993. > >For it to be a crime, I would presume that the courts would require >"guilty knowledge" of the act. (At least I hope they would!) But what is "guilty knowledge"? Let's suppose I'm web-browsing, and I come across something I shouldn't. If I'm aware of caching, I _know_ that the stuff is in my memory or HD or somewhere, and I _know_ it's illegal. Does that constitute "guilty knowledge"? What if a person is unaware of this caching? Does he lack the same guilty knowledge? See, this is the problem with the "guilty knowledge" idea: It really isn't knowledge which should be illegal, intent is vital. Part of the reason "our" system is so screwed up is that police can misrepresent our actions in this way. I have an easy solution for this: _NO_ information should be illegal. None. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:23 PM 4/8/96 -0800, david friedman wrote: >Have you read _The Hacker Crackdown_? I think it is pretty clear that part >of what was going on there involved law enforcement people deliberately >punishing BBS operators for behavior that was wicked but not >illegal--basically facilitating communications involved in committing >crimes (credit card number theft and the like). The punishment consisted of >seizing the computer and backups and holding it for a year or so as >"evidence"--without ever filing charges. > >Conceivably the owner could have taken legal action--but doing so would >give the law enforcement people an incentive to file charges, thus imposing >large costs on the owner even if he was innocent of any crime and could >eventually prove it. > >I suspect that a good deal of this goes on in most law enforcement systems, >in one form or another. Charging and convicting people is costly, even if >they are guilty--and there is often behavior that law enforcement people >want to prevent that is not even illegal. On the other hand, there are lots >of things police can do that impose sizable costs but do not require a >conviction, such as arresting you, holding you in a cell overnight, but >never actually trying you for anything. >David Friedman >School of Law >Santa Clara University This is yet another one of the many reasons I advocate a system, AP, that some people around here call "extremely radical." (By today's standards it _is_ "extremely radical," but only in the sense that many sheeple seem ready to continue to tolerate the status quo.) I assert that if there is a mechanism in existence over the medium to long term to allow officialdom to punish people without conviction for things that are not even crimes, then I see nothing wrong with setting up a different system to punish these _officials_, without conviction, for things that THEY would claim are not crimes. If those officials wish to avoid this punishment, they should resign or even better, use their powers to immediately eliminate that unfair and unjustified punishment for ordinary citizens. But I guess this solution is a bit too obvious for some, huh? B^) Maybe we should call it "Contempt of Citizenry." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: (Fwd) British Study Claims That Photo Credit Cards Don't Work
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Some thoughts... (er, questions): > > 1. What are the implications for log-on systems that rely on > > recognition of faces (supposedly impossible for hackers to describe > > and exploit)? At 11:19 AM 4/8/96 -0700, David Loysen wrote: > Does anybody know how well these systems work? Yes: They don't work. > If I don't shave over the > weekend will my computer know who I am Monday morning? Shaving probably will not be a problem, but holding your head at a slightly different angle, or having slightly different lighting, or combing your hair differently will screw up the system totally, unless the system has radically improved since the last time I read up on it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

3 3

Re: questions about bits and bytes
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:33 PM 4/8/96 -0400, Jack Mott wrote: > a bit is 1 or 0 > 8 bits make up a byte (0-255) > If I have a 5 byte key, does that make it a 40 bit key? Yes. > The only > reason this doesn't make sense to me is it seems useless to use 5 byte > keys, yet that is what companies export since the government limits keys > to 40 bits. Yes, a 40 bit key is useless. What is it that does not make sense to you? --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

1 0

Re: Bank transactions on Internet
by Jüri Kaljundi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Jim Philips wrote: > I work with Security First. I would like to add that we use SSL 128 bit key > with 40 secret, but it is not the only security feature we have. So far, it > has been the means for encrypting data coming to and from the Bank. We also > have a site certificate from Verisign and multiple layers of internal > security at the site. I cannot agree that this encryption is "worthless". As far as I understand anyone can fairly easy crack the 40-bit SSL your bank is using, and you must be lucky nobody has done it yet with your account. Still it seems odd that banks are telling their customers about secure communications without having any real security. Jüri Kaljundi jk(a)digit.ee

1 0

English translation of "Le Grand Secret" complete!
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The English translation of the banned book "Le Grand Secret" is complete! If your French is a little rusty, and you're curious about the book that caused the French government such headaches, you may want to check out: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/le-secret/ A group of volunteers performed this work without compensation. (I solicited help with the translation by putting a note on my web pages.) A German translation is now in progress, and I expect to have the text online by this summer. -Declan ------------------------------ THE BIG SECRET By Dr. Claude Gubler http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/le-secret/ Chapters and translators: * Chapter 1 * Chapter 2 * Chapter 3 (Michel Eytan) * Chapter 4 (Francoise R. Corey) * Chapter 5 (Jennifer FitzGerald) * Chapter 6 (Jonathan Wallace) * Chapter 7 * Chapter 8 (E. Dean Detrich) * Chapter 9 (Kris Shapar) * Chapter 10 (Jean-Michel Prima) * Chapter 11 * Chapter 12 * Chapter 13 (Andrea Crain) Because of the sensitive political nature of this work, not everyone who helped translate Le Grand Secret into English wished to be listed here. Above are the names of those who chose to be identified. However, everyone who volunteered deserves thanks for donating their time and making this important work available to a wider audience. Andrea Crain, in particular, has spent endless hours coordinating this effort and ensuring the high quality of the final translation. Thanks, Andrea, for all your work. -Declan McCullagh, April 7, 1996 ------------------------------

1 0

Re: NSA Budget
by erc＠dal1820.computek.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One could only wish... :) ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ Subject: NSA Budget Sent To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Author: cpunk(a)remail.ecafe.org Reply To: cpunk(a)remail.ecafe.org Date: 4/9/96 3:07:19 AM >Is there a public release of the NSA's annual Budget. >If so is there a quarterly release. -Erinn ----- Yes, there are annual and quarterly reports released to the public which describe in meticulous detail expenditures for the agency's program, personnel and equipment: 1. The program of services and information supplied to government and other intelligence organizations, US and foreign, with terms of each client contract. 2. US employees, their organization, skills, duties and longevity of service; their names, ranks, identification codes, secure communication methods and home addresses; the location of workplaces; the continued training each is scheduled to receive; leaves of absence and destinations while absent. 3. Foreign nationals covertly employed worldwide, with information on each as per 2. 4. A comprehensive listing of all types of world-wide equipment operated; its detailed design, function and output; where it is located; its designers, manufacturers and purchase cost; its schedule of amortization; and its schedule for replacement and/or upgrade, with fifteen-year projected procurement. 5. Special short- and long-term contracts with governmental and non-governmental organizations, US and foreign for one-time projects, by goal, personnel and equipment. 6. Special projects with other US and foreign counter- intelligence to issue disinformation about the agency. 7. Special section on world-wide US and foreign cryptology: cryptanalysis, cryptography, steganography, codes, cyphers, glyphs, mimes; each ranked for security and ease of cracking; governmental and non-governmental parties using each; names of cooperative and resistant cryptographers and cooperating pseudo-cryptographers. 8. Sub-section on methods of Internet traffic and language analysis; operation and surveillance of anonymous remailers, bulletin boards and mail lists; lists of cooperative and resistant educational institutions and commercial organizations. 9. Appendices on: black operations; transparent operations; methods for managing cooperative and resistant governmental and non-governmental persons. The public is invited to study and/or download these reports anonymously at: http://nsa.dod.gov/~reports/quarterly.txt

1 0

Re: Bulletin: Cypherpunks say no taxes owed by moneychangers!
by Robert A. Rosenberg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:48 4/8/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >There are people and companies who make a nice business in currency >exchange, ranging from the large companies one finds in international >airline terminals and banks to the smaller, "Mom and Pop" moneychangers one >finds in barrios and other such places. > >These moneychangers attempt to make a "profit" on each exchange (else >they'd hardly stay in business). But they make their profit by charging a fee for the transaction not just by the float in the exchange rates. For example, if the current official rate is $1=¥125 and you are converting Dollars to Yen, they may only give you 115 Yen keeping the other ¥10 as a processing fee.

1 0

Re: Australia's New South Wales tries net-censorship
by tallpaul＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Apr 09, 1996 01:47:39, '"Robert A. Rosenberg" <hal9001(a)panix.com>' wrote: >At 9:01 4/8/96, Mike Duvos wrote: > >>I'd be interested to know if the courts have ever had a case in >>which a person has been declared to have been in "possession" of >>illegal material merely by virtue of its momentary presence in >>their cache, screen buffer, or usenet spool. > >If you want a real world analogy, there are cases where overeager USPS >Inspectors who want to "get" someone have sent them porno as a Return >Receipt Requested Item and then raided before the person had had a chance >to open the package. That is possession under the Law. > I think this is more "conspiracy" not "possession" under the law. Perhaps an attorney on the list could comment. But I am interested to read more about such "cases." Could R.A. Rosenberg post the case cites? --tallpaul

1 0

Subject: Re: They're running scared.
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** Reply to note from jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> 04/08/96 09:53am -0800 = At 04:33 PM 4/8/96 GMT, attila wrote: = >** Reply to note from jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> 04/07/96 8:32pm -0800 = > = >Jim: = > = > a very sensible article. = = And it is the kind of article that you would never have seen in the = "mainstream press" more than 2-3 years ago, and probably not before the = middle of 1995. One of the implicit functions of the press has been to make = it appear that there is no reasonable opposition to the government in total. = Now, they have begun to admit that ever larger proportions of the = population are soured on the whole concept. = Time's dual attack on Hillary, one orchestrated by someone she tried to control, the other just pure analysis of the situation is very surprising. they are part of the big-money NWO whose "duty" is to keep the sheep informed of the will of the government (and make it appear benevolent. However, let's face it, Hillary has guts: "Bill Gates is greedy because he has amassed a fortune of US$ 15,000,000,000 ($15 billion) but the US Government is a helpful Village because it takes US$ 1,400,000,000,000 ($1.4 trillion) from us each year and does good things with it." --Hillary Clinton that takes one bitch of a person to make that arrogant statement --and the cover picture tells it all --ridden hard and put away wet many, many times --and not in the conventional sense. Susan Thosases and she make a real pair. Their actions, or those of Bubba and the rest of the CFR of which george Bush is the hatchet man, show an absolute contempt for the Constitution. = = > not to be critical over your work in general, but your polemics and = too-far = >radicalism makes it hard to swallow. = = I admit to my polemics. However, saying my position is "too far radicalism" = is quite relative. The average person today is a product of a system which, = in effect, has brainwashed him (to use an old, out-of-favor term) to believe = in the idea that the government has the authority to run just about = everything it chooses to. I, and increasing numbers of people, disagree. = If you have an alternative solution to the "government problem" I'm anxious = to see it. Relative to the sheep, I am "radical," but compared to people = who do indeed see there is a problem, I think I fit right in. = = > I may be an anarchist at heart, but = >anarchy explicitely implies personal responsibility --which few people have. = >the trick is to figure how the idealism of anarchy can survive in a society of = >non-responsible individuals. = = With all due respect, I think I've already figured it out. At least, I = discovered a path that we must at least investigate, because it could lead = us to the goal. politics of assassination? hired guns? I do not think I would have any difficulty with the concept in theory; just that we would run out of targets too soon and be forced back to economic terrorism. I do know, WITHOUT A DOUBT, that I will NOT participate in such a matter. The prophet, Joseph Smith said: The Constitution is not a law, but it empowers the people to make laws... The Constitution tells us what shall not be lawful tender... The legislture has ceded up to us the privilege of enacting such laws as are not inconsitent with the Constitution of the United States... The different states, and even the Congress itself have passed many laws diametrically contrary to the Constitution of the United States. ...Shall we be such fools as to be governed by its laws, which are unconstitutional? No!... The Constitution acknowledges that the people have all the power not reserved to itself. I am a lawyer. I am a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth, and hell. to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all lawyers, doctors, and other big bodies. This is the doctrine of the Constitution, so help me God.... Now, this may not agree with your thinking (and there are pages more of Joseph Smith's statements on defending the Constitution), but I think he hit it on the head. Secondly, Thomas Jefferson stated: "I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical... It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government" --Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) or maybe: Democracy is a form of government under which everyone has the freedom to elect officials to restrict his freedom. or to put in more succintly, I think an old Doonesbury cartoon that had Duke (representing the NRA) testifying before a Senate subcommittee summed it up nicely..... Senator: "And we and the American people have had enough of you and your fanatic organization!" Duke: "I see Senator, shall I put you down for a million postcards?" Senator: "Don't you threaten me, mister!" Politicians only understand one thing. I am not a pacifist; I do believe in fighting for what is right; I did my duty in the 60s (in spades) --I could have asked the Church for the CO form; after the way the government used us (particularly the "black" battalionsfor which I was the CO) solely to test new weaponry and build up the military-industrial economics, by 1980 it hit me as to the extent I, and the rest of us, had been betrayed, yes, our government has a problem: greed, and power. Joseph Smith, however, did say: The Constitution should contain a provision that every officer of the Government who should neglect or refuse to extend the protection guaranteed in the Constitution should be subject to caputal punishment, and then the President of the United States would not say, "Your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you." Anarchy which degenerates to mob rule is untenable. What I do not see in your treatises is any planning for the future --once mob rule reigns, the next step is tribal councils, chiefs, and chiefs of chiefs --and I do not mean elected chiefs. As it has been, it will be. Man never learns from history --he just repeats it. -- "Don't hunt wild game, hunt lawyers! They provide better sport, suffer from severe overpopulation, and besides, they taste just like chicken!! -- Obscenity is a crutch for inarticulate motherfuckers. Fuck the CDA! cc: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>

1 0