December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Bernstein case decisision (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:00 PM 4/17/96 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote: >reposted with permission. > >A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 05:23:47 -0400 >>From: Mike Godwin <mnemonic(a)well.com> >The following summary is from my colleague Shari Steele: > >What Judge Patel said. >First, the judge ruled that Bernstein could bring his case even though the >Arms Export Control Act specifically precludes judicial review, because what >we are asking the judge to review (i.e., the constitutionality of the >statute and its regulations) was not what had been precluded (i.e., the >government's determination in a particular instance whether or not something >was exportable). "With respect to constitutional questions, the judicial >branch not only possesses the requisite expertise to adjudicate these >issues, it is also the best and final interpreter of them." [stuff deleted] >The judge, therefore, did not throw out any of our claims (the ITAR acts as >a prior restraint on speech, the ITAR is overbroad, and the ITAR is vague). >She looked at each of them one by one and determined that each of them had >merit. > >What this decision means. >Most directly, it means that we can continue on with our lawsuit. The >government had brought a motion to dismiss the case, contending that the >court lacked jurisdiction to hear this matter because it was a matter of >national security. The judge struck that down and said that we can go >forward with our suit. > >More indirectly, the judge's ruling sets the stage for us winning at trial. >She clearly "gets it," and isn't intimidated by the government's use of >precedential cases that aren't on point. It looks like this judge is well on her way to throwing out the portion of ITAR which deals with software of all kinds, not merely digitized source code originally from books. That's progress, of a sort. I'm still waiting to see what that "Burns bill" will be all about. Since that bill is supposed to deal directly with the issues this judge has already shown sense on, I think that this bill ought to be no less generous with computer software exports than an anticipated court decision WRT ITAR will be. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Re[2]: "STOP SENDING ME THIS SHIT"
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Perry E. Metzger > >Remedial english composition courses are available at virtually all >community colleges, and are a great help in making yourself understood >in writing. ....................................................................... Suvcrivers, Look Out - Perry is on a roll!!! (as he smiles quietly to himself.........) .. Blanc >

1 0

Fw: CWD-Pool Cool
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 Thought some of you might enjoy this. I sure some of you have already read it, and if so, sorry for the excess noise. - -----Begin Included Message ----- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 1996 05:34:40 -0700 From: "Brock N. Meeks" <brock(a)well.com> To: cwd-l(a)cyberwerks.com Cc: CyberWire Dispatch // Copyright (c) 1996 // Note: This is a re-issue of Dispatch. An earlier attempt to send to the CWD list was tanked by a glitch in the software. You may have seen this as reposted from another Newsgroup. If so, disregard and accept our apologies for the redundency; however, lots of CWD list subscribers have asked for this reposting and we are compl=07=01=D46=82 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMXVkqRKvccEAmlQ9AQHihwf7BItG4dpM564IQAUtbaQzFfjkJcfLvnrn 4OVJ98LgWEKa1mjqU728hp4g32lBfjYqcHC1Teh1vs4KTWSSM+Oz9fHA6NUNrgdX MgZkNqSqOx7J+QRfssIb9GgBoh/WA51cjU3r6LZcI4vviuTBx/+tBXkvmpDs3txS DJYKejwwKorOc3rq0Ro3BrSRDcC2aQdgkyetOwDA26uSC0tqp0OX2FLGi7XTmmqX mdE5gIs+OflImRBV23L+bTGy47C5qOQ5MaqYiSw5ka7360O1g5PHXZ/yCguyHCwd Dnx2hr4L7PbHi91Dg0EdYHUhyhRH9CFAm9xJ4Few5znrqI6kCqKAiw== =AcaM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[NOISE] Toast Fishing in America
by Dave Del Toasto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[from "If _____ Made Toasters" ...my edits] If The Rand Corporation made toasters... They would be large, perfectly smooth, seamless black cubes. Each morning, exactly as much toast as you could eat would appear on top of your toaster. Their service department would have an unlisted phone number and the cube's blueprints would be highly-classified government documents, but the "X-Files" would have an episode with a partially disassembled toaster remarkably similar to it visible in the background. If the NSA made toasters... Your toaster would have a secret crumb-door on the back that only the NSA could open in case they needed to inspect your toast for breakfasts of a national security nature.

1 0

EFF/Bernstein Press Release
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FEDERAL COURT DENIES GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS BERNSTEIN CASE, ACKNOWLEDGES SOURCE CODE AS SPEECH April 17, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Counsel 301/375-8856, ssteele(a)eff.org Lori Fena, Executive Director 415/436-9333, lori(a)eff.org Denying the government's motion for dismissal in mathematician Daniel Bernstein's suit against the State Department, Judge Marilyn Patel in the Northern District of California ruled Monday that source code in Bernstein's cryptographic algorithm, "Snuffle," is speech that is protected from prior restraint by the First Amendment. LANDMARK RULING This is the first time a U.S. court has ruled that source code is speech under First Amendment analysis. Previously, courts have held that software is speech for copyright law only. The decision states in part: "This court can find no meaningful difference between computer language, particularly high-level languages as defined above, and German or French....Like music and mathematical equations, computer language is just that, language, and it communicates information either to a computer or to those who can read it....Thus, even if Snuffle source code, which is easily compiled into object code for the computer to read and easily used for encryption, is essentially functional, that does not remove it from the realm of speech....For the purposes of First Amendment analysis, this court finds that source code is speech." (The full text of the decision can be found at http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/Legal/Decision_041596/) Judge Patel's acknowledgment that source code enjoys Constitutional protection has implications that reach far beyond cases involving the export of cryptography. The decision holds importance to the future of secure electronic commerce and lays the groundwork needed to expand First Amendment protection to electronic communication. Because of its far-reaching implications, the Bernstein case is being watched closely not only by privacy advocates, but by the entire computer industry, the export and cryptography communities and First Amendment advocates. CASE WILL PROCEED The decision allows Bernstein to continue with his lawsuit that the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) acts as a prior restraint on speech and that the ITAR is overbroad and vague. EFF is very pleased with Judge Patel's ruling and believes that it bodes well for Bernstein's ultimate success in trial, which is now scheduled to proceed with the normal pre-trial and trial sequence of events. The court drew an important distinction between the Bernstein case and other cases involving export controls on cryptography. The government has cited several cases involving the Export Administration Act as reasons why the Bernstein case should be dismissed. Judge Patel recognized that the Constitutional questions being raised by Bernstein differ significantly from the policy questions raised in the cases introduced by the government. Judge Patel also ruled that Bernstein could bring his case even though the Arms Export Control Act specifically precludes judicial review, because what Bernstein is asking the court to review (i.e., the constitutionality of the statute and its regulations) was not what had been precluded (i.e., the government's determination in a particular instance whether or not something was exportable). "With respect to constitutional questions, the judicial branch not only possesses the requisite expertise to adjudicate these issues, it is also the best and final interpreter of them." CASE BACKGROUND As part of her decision, Judge Patel determined that only the source code was at issue in the case, not Bernstein's academic paper describing the source code. Bernstein tried to get the government to rule separately on the paper and the code back in 1993 by filing separate commodity jurisdiction requests. The State Department merged the requests and rejected them all. On June 29, 1995, after Bernstein and EFF filed suit, the government sent Bernstein a letter saying that the paper could be published and never had been forbidden. While Judge Patel claimed that the issue of the paper now appeared to be moot, she commented, "It is disquieting than an item defendants now contend could not be subject to regulation was apparently categorized as a defense article and subject to licensing for nearly two years, and was only reclassified after plaintiff initiated this action." THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION EFF, a non-profit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information, is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono legal counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and organized amicus briefs from members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. ###

1 0

Re: Re[2]: on corporations and subpoenas
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perry Metzger wrote... > "Adam Pingitore" writes: > > Um, well, then I'm going to have to spam your ass. > > Not a finger raised. I will do nothing whatsoever to take you off this > mailing list. > > Have fun. > Oooh, oooh, can I have some Spam (TM) too?

1 0

Re: why compression doesn't perfectly even out entropy
by rick hoselton 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:12 PM 4/16/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >> Are you sure you want to claim that the text of Hamlet would make >> a good key for a one-time pad? ... much deleted .... >It is far, far more probable for the cryptanalyst, thinking the >key was "Hamlet", to get out a plausible but totally bogus text, than >it is for the key to actually be "Hamlet". I can agree with this. >Of course, it is also far, >far more probable for you to be stupid than for a random number >generator to put out "Hamlet". I agree here too. I've been stupid many times, but I never expect to see a fair random number generator produce Hamlet. (I should live so long!) >but if you go around getting rid of >RNGs that produce "Hamlet" or anything close, you have in theory given >information to the attacker that gives them a slightly better chance >of attacking you since your pads are no longer purely random. And I could agree with this too, except that cryptanalysts do not consider every string to be equally likely. If they did, they would never even bother to look at XORing a bitstream with ciphertext to produce plaintext. >The reason all this isn't stupid to discuss and actually has some >importance is just this fact. If you build a system that discards >things that "don't look like they have enough entropy" (which certain >people around here have proposed), you are giving the cryptanalyst a >very strong piece of information about the key, so your key is no >longer totally unpredictable. This is true. But it is also unavoidable. Actually, I'm pleased to give up one-percent of my keyspace, if that's the one-percent that an analyst will check first. Another example: What if I selected a nonsense passphrase, "Dagmar shaved Howard's cocker spaniel" Not great, but adequate for my needs. If, by some wild coindence, a book by that title became a best seller, I would change my passphrase. A cryptanalyst who knew that was my feeling could simplify his cracking by not bothering to search for best selling book titles. On the other hand, a cryptanalyst who was not so convinced of my paranoia, and who DID check book titles, would not find my passphrase. I assume that BOTH philosophies would be used in a serious attack. When I do the math, it says that, assuming BOTH types of attack are done, it is better to have a passphrase that is not the title of a book. >An irony, but something important to >keep in mind. Every once in a while (once in every four billion bits, >or so) your random number generator will put out 32 1's in a row if it >is functioning properly. Agreed. And if that produces a "weak key" for your cipher, you'll get broken. >Any given small segment of the output of a >good RNG might not look "random", but "random" isn't a property of a >given number -- it is the property of the infinite sequence itself. I agree here too. But the analyst doesn't see the infinite sequence, only the number itself. I am enjoying this discussion, but I feel like I'm running out of useful new ways to try to express this idea. If I don't reply, it doesn't mean you have convinced me. :)

3 2

"STOP SENDING ME THIS SHIT"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:12 PM 4/16/96, Adam Pingitore wrote: > STOP SENDING ME THIS SHIT As this is one of several such messages this clown has sent us, despite unsubscribe instructions having been posted several times in the last few weeks, I am bouncing all of his inappropriate messages back to him (though I am being careful--and I urge you all to be careful, too--to cut out any cc:ing of others). If you feel this jerk's posts are inappropriate, you might decide to do the same as I am doing. (Again, be careful to review the To: and cc: fields before sending, to ensure that the list does not get spammed by your actions.) --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."

7 6

Re: Nazis on the Net
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: tallpaul(a)pipeline.com (tallpaul) >Since E.A. Smith wants completeness re the Zundelsite issue, I am curious >about his assertion about Weaver. >Might we know the source of his complete info on Weaver's political and >racial beliefs. >I see, in essence, three hypothesis: >1) Cover the ass of a potential neo-Nazi or racist (or both) without any >reference to what is really true; >2) Get information from outer space; >3) Base the conclusion on hard evidence. >If the answer is 3) I'd like to get a real pointer to the real evidence. By >real evidence I mean just that, not wishful thinking or advertising jingles >for points 1) or 2). Hmm... good question. I've seen various quotes from Randy Weaver in various publications, including Time and other non-right-wing ones. None of them indicated him as an actual neo-Nazi or racist, even in the stories (such as in Time) which appeared to assume that militia member = neo-Nazi (quite incorrect, from what I know of the subject. For instance, the most anti-government of the gun-rights organizations, which appears to have quite a few militia members, is Jews for Firearms Ownership. The founders of the organization in question believe that gun rights are necessary to prevent another Holocaust. Other gun-rights political organizations concentrate on self-defense from non-governmental criminals). I don't know when I'll have the time to check on the matter. >PS: Cypherpunks seems to be getting very wiggy these days. Most mailing lists do on a regular basis... my (passing) scans of the archives indicate that cypherpunks is prone to this. -Allen

2 1

Re: OS/2 encryption
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-04-21 22:11:06 EDT, Lucky Green wrote: >Back up the HD to tape (encrypt the data on the tape). Move the tape out of >reach. And don't tell anyone, especially not this list, that you did that. Personally, I recommend the Syquest EZdrive over tape. The EZ is a fully functional (bootable, too) 130 MB hard drive ($200 for an IDE internal model, also available in SCSI and parallel port versions) that uses removable cartridges ($20 each) for storage. Most backup programs let you back up to a hard drive, which is much faster than tape, and more reliable as well. Ditto the bit about storing the backups (whatever media) somewhere the CO$ will never find them, and keeping your mouth shut about it.

1 0