December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

key signing at cyberpayments?
by P.J. Ponder 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

if anyone is attending the cyberpayments conference in Dallas June 17th or so and is interested in PGP key signing, please advise in private mail or to the list. Thank you. -- pj ponder

1 0

Re: Any DLL's that handle Public Key Encryption or Key Exchange?
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:40 AM 5/17/96 +1200, pgut001(a)cs.auckland.ac.nz wrote: > The second is that if you're in the US you're probably going to run >into legal hassles using this code unless someone wants to do an >alternative RSAREF implementation which you can plug in in place of the >existing RSA code. There's an RSAEURO drop-in clone of RSAREF that's on ftp.ox.ac.uk, so you could write a version of your software that lets Yankees and non-Yankees drop in whichever version is appropriate without worrying about patent or copyright problems. Any* RSAREF system used in the US has the problem that it's limited to the "official" interfaces, which means you can't do fully general RSA without permission. (* There was one RSAREF version that didn't insist on this in its license; don't remember which one.) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

CDT Policy Post 2.19 - 27 Reps Urge President to Abandon Key-Escrow EncryptionPolicy
by bobpal＠cdt.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ _____ _______ / ____| __ \__ __| ____ ___ ____ __ | | | | | | | | / __ \____ / (_)______ __ / __ \____ _____/ /_ | | | | | | | | / /_/ / __ \/ / / ___/ / / / / /_/ / __ \/ ___/ __/ | |____| |__| | | | / ____/ /_/ / / / /__/ /_/ / / ____/ /_/ (__ ) /_ \_____|_____/ |_| /_/ \____/_/_/\___/\__, / /_/ \____/____/\__/ The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 19 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 19 May 17, 1996 CONTENTS: (1) 27 Representatives Urge President Clinton to Abandon Key-Escrow Encryption Policy (2) Join Sen Leahy At HotWired, Wed 5/22 to Discuss His Crypto Bill (3) Subscription Information (4) About CDT, contacting us ** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner in tact ** Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of <editor(a)cdt.org> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) 27 REPRESENTATIVES URGE PRESIDENT CLINTON TO ABANDON KEY-ESCROW POLICY A bi-partisan group of 27 Congressmen, led by Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Tom Campbell (R-CA) on Wednesday (5/15) sent a letter to President Clinton urging the President to abandon the Administration's key-escrow encryption proposal and "instead immediately liberalize export controls on non-key escrow encryption technology." Expressing "serious concerns" about the impact of current U.S. encryption policy on individual privacy and US competitiveness, the bi-partisan group wrote: "The ability of companies and individuals to ensure that the information they send over communications and computer networks is secure is a prerequisite to exploiting the potential of the Global Information Infrastructure." The letter was signed by several prominent members from both parties, including Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Tom Campbell (R-CA), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), Rick Boucher (D-VA), Bob Barr (R-GA), Pat Schroeder (D-CO), Carlos Moorehead (R-CA), and 20 other members. The bi-partisan call to President Clinton to abandon the Administration's key escrow policy is yet another encouraging sign of increasingly strong Congressional support for reform of US encryption policy. Congress is currently considering several bills designed to encourage the widespread availability privacy-protecting technologies for the Internet by lifting export controls on strong encryption: * HR 3011, the "Security and Freedom Through Encryption (SAFE) Act of 1996", sponsored by over 30 members including Reps Goodlatte (R-VA), Campbell (R-CA), Eshoo (D-CA), Boucher (D-VA). * S. 1726, the "Promotion of Commerce On-Line in the Digital Era (Pro- CODE) act of 1996, sponsored by Senators Burns (R-MT), Leahy (D-VT), Pressler (R-SD), Dole (R-KS), Wyden (D-OR), and Murray (D-WA) * S. 1587, the "Encrypted Communications Privacy Act of 1996", also sponsored by Senators Burns and Leahy. Hearings on HR 3011 (Rep Goodlatte's bill) and the Burns/Leahy S. 1726 (Pro-CODE) are expected in June. INTERNET SECURITY DAY - A NATIONAL DISCUSSION ON THE NEED TO REFORM US ENCRYPTION POLICY In July, CDT and over 25 other organizations will hold a daylong education event in California's Silicon Valley in July. The "Internet Security Day" will bring together industry leaders, members of Congress, encryption experts, and others to discuss the need to reform US encryption policy. Similar events, to be held throughout the US and on the Net, are also being planned. Sponsors of the event include the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW), EFF, Americans for Tax Reform, AT&T, Pacific Telesis, America Online, Netscape, the Business Software Alliance, the Software Publishers Association, and several others. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE ENCRYPTION POLICY DEBATE & TEXT OF THE LETTER Background information on the encryption policy debate, full text of the various legislative proposals, detailed analysis, the text of the Goodlatte/Campbell letter, information on the July Silicon Valley event, and transcripts from online appearances by Senators on the Encryption issue, can be found at CDT's Cryptography Issues Page: URL:http://www.cdt.org/crypto/ Or at the Encryption Policy Resource Page: URL:http://www.crypto.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) SENATORS GO ONLINE TO DISCUSS PRIVACY AND SECURITY ONLINE Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the "Senior Senator from Cyberspace", ardent proponent of Net.Freedom and co-sponsor of 2 bills to repeal encryption export controls, will hold an online "town meeting" on Wednesday May 22 to discuss privacy and security online. DETAILS ON THE EVENT * Wednesday May 22, 4 - 5 pm ET (1 pm Pacific) on HotWired URL: http://www.hotwired.com/wiredside/ To participate, you must be a registered HotWired member (there is no charge for registration). You must also have RealAudio(tm) and a telnet application properly configured to work with your browser. Please visit http://www.hotwired.com/wiredside/ for information on how you can easily register for Hotwired and obtain RealAudio. Wednesday's town meeting is another in a series of planned events, and is part of a broader project coordinated by CDT and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) designed to bring the Internet Community into the debate and encourage members of Congress to work with the Net.community on vital Internet policy issues. Events with other members of Congress working on Internet Policy Issues are currently being planned. Please check http://www.crypto.com for announcements of future events ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (3) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by more than 9,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to policy-posts-request(a)cdt.org with a subject: subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with a subject of: unsubscribe policy-posts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info(a)cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/ FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Policy Post 2.19 5/17/96 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Past one terabit/second on fiber
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:08 PM 5/15/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > One problem with the development of such high-end technologies is that >they tend to increase economies of scale to the point where it's impractical to >have anything but a monopoly or ogliopoly. As well as concerns about the degree >of control such an organization may be able to exert in and of itself (acting >like a government, in essence), there's also that such an organization is >easier to pressure than a lot of small providers. Anyone have a suggested >solution, or reasons that I shouldn't be so worried? Personally, I'm not terribly worried by such concentrations (for reasons I'll mention at the end). But I'll note that Eric Fair's recent post described the far-from-geodesic traffic situation, with a relatively small number of "super-nodes" (like "MAE-West" and her sisters) handling huge fractions of traffic. These super-nodes are obvious points of attack (in the nuclear war--or terrorist--scenario oft-cited as the motivation for packet-switching) and lessen the "geodesic" nature of the Net. Economies of scale may be pushing us away from the "full-distributed" geodesic nature toward super-nodes. The reason I am not really too worried is that encryption and remailers allow a kind of "meta-geodesic" network to be (virtually) layered on top of the physical network. (In the famous network hierarchy of network levels, it seems we can add a new level.) --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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Why is hacktic going down?
by David Rosoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know the reasons for the shutting down of the hacktic remailer? And also, are the other remailers at utopia.hacktic.nl going down with the remailer at remailer(a)utopia.hacktic.nl? Thanks David

1 0

NOISE.SYS Info Distribution List
by wlkngowl＠unix.asb.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've set up a distribution list for NOISE.SYS. If you want to receive periodic announcements about new versions, bugs, related utilities, etc., reply to <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> with the subject "add noise.sys-list" (NOISE.SYS is a crypto-quality RNG device for MS-DOS, similar to the random.c implementation for Linux. The latest version is 0.5.6-Beta.) Rob (aka "Deranged Mutant")

1 0

Re: Senator, your public key please?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:01 PM 5/16/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: > >Secondly, the Ethics Committee was very interested in the issue. As of >now they have ruled that "exchanging" PGP signatures is an "exchange in >kind" and an ethics violation. Ms. Howell expressed exasperation over >this lunacy, but put it much this way: "No, you guys don't understand >what the issues are here, but I don't have 3 hours to explain it all to >you either." Apparently the ethics committee is concerned that a >signature from Leahy's key will constitute some sort of endorsement and the >"you sign mine and I'll sign yours" looks like influence peddling. > >Part of the problem was that several politically oriented groups >approached Leahy's office and descended like vultures on a carcass, >all of them wanting to certify his key. > >No signing from Senator's keys for the time being. She said the ethics >committee went so far as to prohibit them from soliciting signatures from >others as well. Her conservative (and reasonable) interpretation was that >she couldn't hand over a fingerprint of the key for signing purposes. > >As things stand now Ms. Howell intends to try and educate some of the key >Ethics members over the August break and have a decent signing policy >after the break itself. > >Welcome to the hill. Gee, isn't it too bad that nobody has thought of a solution for all these politician-problems? B^) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Why the Poor are Mostly Deserving of their Fate
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 18 May 96 at 4:30, Duncan Frissell wrote: > 1) get a high school diploma > 2) get married > 3) get any job > > Only about 2 tenths of 1% of those who satisfy those three > requirements incomes below the official poverty line. > I try and keep in mind that 80-90% of the "take" in government > programs for the "poor" goes to unpoor government employees. > DCF Hi DCF. Can you please tell me where I can get such kind of information? Is there any databank of such facts? Would be great fun to have! Regards! JFA DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants; physists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 Unsollicited commercial e-mail will be proofread at US165 $/h Any sender of such material will be considered as to have ac- cepted the above mentionned terms.

1 0

NOTS posted to alt.religion.scientology
by hendersn＠zeta.org.au 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Maybe this is about something else (the NOTS materials), or >maybe the threat of legal action was enough to do Hacktic in, despite what >would seem to be a favorable precedent. It wasn't the Fishman Affidavit that was posted - it was the NOTS materials. The Affidavit material has been in a public court record for some years now, and was an important factor in the favourable Dutch ruling. The NOTS have never been subject to public scrutiny. In fact, the Church claims them as trade secrets as well as copyrighted materials. That may or may not have changed now that the NOTS have been viewed by who knows how many people. >It's not clear to me that Scientology is only concerned about copyrighted >material. That's what they claim, but then Hubbard said, "The purpose of >the suit is to harass..." Copyrights became the issue, IMHO, because they >have some legal ground to stand on there. Damn right! > >I think their goal is to make all their Net critics come out into the >open, and they're willing to use the legal system as a pawn towards that >goal. You can't threaten or intimidate anon posters as easily. You can't >send your private investigators to harass them and their families. The Church dislikes anonymous remailers intensely, despite exploiting their advantages themselves. The few comments that their PR reps have made indicate that the Church wants some way of stripping someone's anonymity away if they "abuse" this anonymity. I dislike that idea intensely. Everyone remember anon.penet.fi? >I appreciate the incredibly difficult position that all of this puts >remailer operators in, but I don't think CoS will be statisfied with just >stopping anon Usenet posts. IMHO, they more likely want the remailers gone, >altogether. Don't believe that this is about copyrights, just because >they say it is. Like it or not, posting the NOTS _is_ a violation of copyright. While many people think the Church of $cientology is abusing Intellectual Property laws in order to keep their secret materials secret, the remailers have the ability to violate _anyone's_ copyrights. I can imagine a scenario in which the NSA starts spamming wholesale copyrighted works anonymously in order to give the Government a compelling reason to legislate against anonymous remailers. >Rich Zed(hendersn(a)zeta.org.au) "Don't hate the media, become the media" - Jello Biafra PGP key on request

1 0

Re: anonymous companies
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> At 06:42 PM 5/16/96 -0700, Wei Dai wrote: >> > I'll just give one problem: the principal-agent problem. How do owners of >> > the company make sure the managers operate the company in their best >> > interest? >On Fri, 17 May 1996 jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: >> Actually looting of companies happens a lot right now today, and very >> seldom leads to criminal charges. Twice I have lost a job because the >> company I worked for went under, apparently due to looting. At 08:37 AM 5/18/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: > Be careful to distingiush "owner" from "employee." All to common a > mistake I fear. > Until someone passes a constitutional right to not be fired, well, you're > employeed at the will and by the good grace of the owners and your boss. I was of course referring to looting by the management, not the shareholders, as should have been obvious from context. >> In others, such as net startups, >> I see no solution other than increased reliance on personal individual >> capital. >Still, vulnerable to last round problems. Reread: Your above statement makes no sense in context. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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