December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: "Contempt" charges likely to increase
by ddfr＠best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>It is exactly this attitude that we need to change. I presume you saw my >comment from a day ago, when I pointed out that before 1968, local phonecos >were doing wiretaps without any sort of court order, ... >I'm still waiting for somebody to show that the majority of crimes that are >investigated using subpoena power are "malum in se" crimes, as opposed to >"malum prohibitum" ones. > >Jim Bell 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 David Friedman School of Law Santa Clara University

1 0

NSA Budget
by zalchgar＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is there a public release of the NSA's annual Budget. If so is there a quarterly release. -Erinn

4 3

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