December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Criminal Law Web Site
by AFDA2＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The upgraded Web site for the Association of Federal Defense Attorneys (AFDA) is now available at http://www.afda.org The site provides several valuable tools for criminal defense attorneys who practice in the federal courts: (1) a convenient compilation of over 100 Web sites pertaining to federal law, including search capabilities through all the statutes and case law rulings; (2) an online newsletter that is updated weekly; (3) a message board; (4) a form library for downloading documents (we will soon begin uploading documents to the library); (4) a listing of upcoming seminars for which you can register online; (6) a feedback form so that you can give us your comments and suggestions; (7) and a survey function so that we can conduct polls within the criminal defense bar online for submission to Congress. The Web site is financed through membership dues on a non-profit basis. Until mid-June, the site will be free to all users but will then become password-protected for members only. We hope you will take advantage of this important resource and join the Association so that we can continue providing the defense bar with needed support. To join, simply click the "Join AFDA" bar on the main page of the Web site. Best regards to all. Greg Nicolaysen (Los Angeles)

1 0

Re: Another Analysis -- Re: NIST Draft Key Escrow Paper
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:35 AM 5/22/96 -0400, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote: >Declan McCullagh and Gilmore have already provided a brief summary of the >doc, here are a few thoughts I sent to some others last night: [schtuff deleted] >So Clipper III is a bit meaner and leaner. If Clipper I would have sunk >because of sheer clumsiness, a sleeker ship carrying the same load will now >be developed by the free market. The load is the assumption that citizens >can be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." I didn't notice any specific reference to the difference between materials encrypted for long-term storage or transmission (data, email) and on the other hand audio telephone communications, the original stated application for the Clipper chip. I can't see any reason that an individual would want the key to his own crypto telephone keys escrowed; unlike the key for data on a computer, which at least theoretically might be lost, the cryptophone data is by definition lost as soon as it is used. Therefore, I can see no argument which would make a person support this key escrow for that purpose. Since the whole system is supposed to be "voluntary", who is going to accept this? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: An alternative to remailer shutdowns (fwd)
by David Rosoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 10:24 AM 5/21/96 -0800, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote: >At 06:28 PM 5/20/96 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: >> >>Forwarded message: >> >>> Date: Mon, 20 May 1996 15:02:08 -0700 >>> From: Hal <hfinney(a)shell.portal.com> >>> Subject: An alternative to remailer shutdowns >> >>> was apparently sent through my remailer. According to 18 USC 875(c), >>> "Whoever transmits in interstate commerce any communication containing >>> any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of >>> another, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more >>> than five years, or both." I may not be able to continue operating >>> either of my remailers (alumni.caltech.edu and shell.portal.com) for >>> much longer due to this kind of abuse. >> >>There should be a section in there dealing with 'knowingly'. If not then we >>should immediately bring charges against any and all newspapers who have >>ever printer a ransom letter, or perhaps even the Unibomber Manifesto since >>there is clear evidence of 'threat to injure the person of another'. > >But even "knowingly" needs to be carefully defined. A remailer operator >today KNOWS that his system COULD be used for illegal activities; he merely >doesn't know that they are, currently. I think that the definition should >be so narrow that it is impossible for a third party (or the government >itself) to incriminate the remailer operator by having his system forward >arguably illegal or copyright-violating material. > > >Jim Bell >jimbell(a)pacifier.com Can the same sort of standards as per the U.S. CDA be applied? The first draft of the CDA would have held ISP's responsible for, e.g., porn transmitted using their services. Isn't this the same sort of thing - that is, that remailer operators provide a service, and they cannot be held responsible for people who abuse that service? I think that this line of thought is reasonable. David -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMaNZlxguzHDTdpL5AQGkIgQAkfTaXyFp32yX1CiKK/7xlfvojYK+oG2U BWS5w2gMWeorRB1jPJW3Aec3cAlUQCoYg7TOd+Z8EgHWqHxR30cDUBd56oq1wlmf 0X3d2rjnM64Bcq8gonFXPxeSU+C3O0qobdj58BUpo+o2ueNo0sPGLK79KKAHuhWW oBBXV6jGTWc= =AXOt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:14 PM 5/22/96 -0400, Perry wrote: > >Matts Kallioniemi writes: >> At 17:44 1996-05-21 +0200, bryce(a)digicash.com wrote: >> >Matts, you don't want to do floating point for money, because >> >floating point doesn't give you good control of precision. >> >> Yes I do. Several major currency traders in Sweden keep all >> their money in 64 bit floating point storage. > >I have trouble believing you. None of the forex accounting I know of >in the U.S. is done in floating point. It simply isn't accurate >enough. > >It is true enough that *rates* can be stored as floats if you want, >but never actual sums. I wish there were a hard-and-fast rule that this were true. I work in Point Of Sale (POS or cash registers), and occasionally we will see a vendor whose software stores money/currency in floating point data types. I try very hard to make sure we do not purchase their software, because this implies the most gross lack of understanding imaginable. Floating points are simply not accurate when you're performing math on other people's money. And, yes, rates are acceptable to store and use as floats, but even the conversion process ultimately yields a long, not a float. And, we usually go out of our way to code rates up as integers and perform the decimal point shifting in code. In the currency class we use, we have an exponent property that defines where the decimal point is. I imagine that by converting the exponent from a short to a long we could even handle lira! :-) * * Note to persons who respect the Italian economy**: That was a joke! ** Note to persons who believe there are people who respect the Italian economy: That was a joke! -john -- J. Deters >From Senator C. Burns' Pro-CODE bill, which I support and you can find at: http://www.senate.gov/member/mt/burns/general/billtext.htm " (2) Miniaturization, disturbed computing, and reduced transmission costs make communication via electronic networks a reality." +---------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: jad(a)dsddhc.com (work) jad(a)pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'33"N by 93^16'42"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | PGP Key ID: 768 / 15FFA875 | +---------------------------------------------------------+

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Take note: If you want me to read you, cc me since I unsubscriVed :) from Cypherpunks... While frothing at the mouth (and god knows what other sphincters...), on a 22 May 96 at 12:37, somebody that behaves like a Rotweiller wrote: > oh, so in other words, a lot of "innocent" people will be murdered > under AP. ah, another great "feature", not a "bug", right?? Yes, but please note that the point for the validating of his statement is that even if this will happens, overall, *less innocents* will suffer from the seemingly random violence of AP than from the actual system. He might be wrong, but you seem to bring no new knowledge that would elucidate the question. Should the US have not dropped the A-Bomb on Japan and let happen 10 times mores casualties (from both sides)? The following paragraphs illustrate very well the way our local Rotweiller sees the world, which is very close to the vision of most statists. > ah, like murder. I see. well, I think you are violating my rights > by disagreeing with me. I shall arrange your consequences > accordingly. > but who decides what is wrong? the arbitrary opinion of some single > human idiot out anywhere in the world? don't you see the tyranny of > this? > it is far worse than the tyranny of a government if I were to > be killed by someone who believes that I violated his rights by > breathing air particles or whatever. via AP, you wish to give him > the mechanism to murder me without trace. Why do you fear so much for yourself? I guess, thoses who want to murder for all sort of reasons like hunting white baby seals or smoking in public simply share your psycho-epistemology. They would have no reasons to put a contract on you. Or would they anyways? > deny rights, legitimacy, justice, blah, blah, blah. the terms you > use have no meaning in the system you are advocating. there are no > "rights" in an anarchy, because a government is the entity created > to safeguard/protect them. all actions are legitimate in an > anarchy, because there is no civilized system that rejects any ones > in particular. By definition, you are right. But note that *they* never advocated true anarchy, only *you* claim that they do. Their vision of Life clearly entail some vision of Rights, Rules of Conduct, etc. They did *not* rule out laws, they only said that they do not like laws that are there to oppress peoples. Now, might you say, how are you gonna know? Because your philosophy is somewhat of a cross between Nietche and Sartre, you see no way out. But they (proponents of AP) have a vision of life that value, as the good old american constitution say, life, liberty and "pursuit of happiness". I might even agree with you, dear Rotty, that Jim Bell is a bit naive and shows a kind of outdated philosophy. Jim Bell et al. entertain the delusion that human beings are intrinsically joyous rationnal animals that, most of the time, love life. Therefore, for them, the AP scheme cannot lead to anything but a kind of laissez-faire world where everybody would be able to pursue happiness to the best of their abilities. OTOH, you believe that the natural tendency of AP would bring a world as you describe it vocally here. A world where the essence of Mankind is not to be a rationnal animal, but an animal, period. In that vision, you believe that a bloodthirsty beast within us will always take over. Maybe you learned that truth from your *own* life experience, I have no idea. So, according to your logic, anybody who doesn't like you will put a prize on your head, and probably look up the necrology section of the paper everyday while gigling. And here, I have to conceed that you may be right. After all, what philosophy ran the country since a hundred years? Huhh? So many peoples are so convinced of that that AP might very well turn against it's originator and further corruption. Don't you think so? > if you think that a government is a tyranny, perhaps you are not > aware of the tyranny of the irrationality of individual men. That sentence should earn one of the top spot of the CP top-ten-of-the-year list! ROTFL and L and L and L ! > it will "work" exactly as anonymous murdering now works. Nobody is more deaf than the blind who does not want to smell... > ah yes, exactly what we need. "enhanced anarchy". you and TCM really > should get together and collaborate. I'm sure you'd come up with > some fruitful conclusions. Who knows? 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 I reserve the right to post publicly any private e-mail sent to me. 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

Re: MixMaster fair use
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"loki(a)infonex.com" 22-MAY-1996 03:43:54.45 >It is patent on RSA, which expires in 2000 as I remember. It can be >licensed, but it is not cheap. I don't know how they would handle a free >program which people pay to use. Do they allow non-profit usage? If so, you could send out a new version that supported ecash payments, with an agreement not to use it for profit. I'd call building up a reserve against legal fees a justifiable action for a non-profit organization (if the interest went back into the same account or toward operating the remailer), but IANAL. Could someone who is comment, preferably after looking over the RSA license? -Allen

1 0

Number one story on CNN this hour.
by Alan B. Clegg 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There are 40 million 'attack capable' systems connected to the Internet and over 120 countries have developed or are developing 'attack software'. [BTW, there will be a BUNCH more attacking systems when 'a new protocol is deployed because they are running out of addresses'] Sheesh. -abc \ Alan B. Clegg Just because I can \ Network Technologist does not mean I will. \ gateway.com, inc. \ <http://www.gateway.com/>

4 3

Re: TCM: mafia as a paradigm for cyberspace
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:02 AM 5/22/96 -0500, snow wrote: >On Wed, 22 May 1996, jim bell wrote: >> more, you'd better not be a crook! > > Or turn in too powerful a crook. Since ratting on people can always be anonymous (and especially so after the advent of good encryption and remailers, assuming they survive!) I don't think it'll be a problem to turn in somebody "too powerful." In fact, the AP system will probably spur the simultaneous development of a system to anonymously reward people who identify and locate bad people of all kinds, even if all they do is this. But unlike the current form of rewards, the snitch won't have to reveal himself to anybody. > Law enforcement won't just go away. That's true, but with a caveat: Post-AP, there will be no such thing as "laws" per se. What there will be is an amorphous world of various interests, of people who feel stepped on if you abuse them, etc. Cumulatively, those interests will constitute "laws," but not like a list of hard-and-fast rules. >There will always be those of us who feel that most crimes _don't_ >deserve the Death Penalty, and that some sort of penal system will >continue to be necessary. In your system this would not be possible >because most people would be afraid to turn people in for fear of >reprisal. Unfortunately, I still haven't written up a description of a replacement for the current "criminal justice system" that I anticipated, and another person on a different list independently though of and described in much greater detail: A set of independant, privatized court systems which an agrieved victim can go to (perhaps anonymously) to charge the "defendant." The defendant, however, doesn't have to show up because it's a voluntary system. The punishment will probably be usually a monetary penalty, which if not paid is numerically added to the reward fund against that person. A defendant is motivated to defend himself to prevent such an eventuality. The accuser is, likewise, motivated to use this system because if the defendant is exposed as an unchallenged criminal, potential assassins (and AP organizations) will presumably work cheaper for their deaths if the defendant doesn't pay the fine. > I think that the biggest flaw in your system is the belief that >people will act rationally. Do you think that the Menendez(sp?) brothers >would have hesitated one second in having there parents offed to collect >the inheretance? Did the Menendez family have relatives who might have wanted retribution for the killings? If so, they could have gotten their revenge very cheaply. How about other rich people who didn't want their to be a precedent that two sons could kill their rich parents and get away with it? >> >Note: I don't necessarily think that AP is a good idea. I think >> >that people should do their own dirty work. >> >> In practice, I think this would be comparatively common as well. What >> currently deters such "take the law into your own hands" is the fact that >> police (being, essentially, in the business of protection) don't want you to >> provide for yourself by protecting yourself. They make it hard on people, >> in the same way they did with Bernard Goetz, the guy who shot four muggers >> on the New York city subway system. Once AP gets rid of the police, it will >> be much easier to protect yourself and not risk jail time, etc. > > Umm... I think that the biggest reason that the Police don't want >you taking the law into your own hands is that civilians tend to screw up >badly. They get the wrong target, they don't stop when they should etc. While I can't quote a specific study, I seem to recall a statistic that civilians were actually MORE likely to shoot and/or kill the RIGHT person, as opposed to the wrong person Remember, most police show up substantially after an incident starts, and they don't know who's in the wrong. A person who's in the right KNOWS this already; he's seen the incident from the beginning. Also, you said civilians "don't stop when they should." Who decides when they should stop? Well, more likely than not it's the police, who would prefer to NOT obsolete themselves, and a dead criminal is far less valuable to the police, prosecutors, and jailers than a live one. I'd say that's a conflict of interest, wouldn't you? (a live criminal results in profits to all these groups, plus lawyers, etc.) > The POLICE usually don't have a problem with an individual >protecting themselves (as long as the response fits the crime, killing a >shoplifter is a no no.) It is the court system that frowns on it. It doesn't really matter which group is making it difficult on the civilians, if they are doing it, it makes it harder for the civilians to protect themselves. > Is there the ability to predict a "mild beating" with your system? >or a "severe beating", or simply a killing? Having one level of punishment >is not a very good legal system. AP cannot replace it. It can with the competing, privatized system with punishments based on fines that I described above. >> Superficially, a person might argue that the lack of police would also make >> it easier for the muggers. However, a "professional mugger" would make a >> LOT of enemies, and it wouldn't take long before he's dead. He'd only have >> to be caught once. Any victim of any mugger would be happy to donate to see >> him gone. > > Give me the name of a mugger. Offer to pay money for such information in most inner cities, and you'll get plenty of takers if the reward's high enough. (and can be collected anonymously.) Remember, AP works because certain people with access to information are given the financial motivation to either kill the criminal or simply reveal (possibly anonymously) who he is. The current system uses money rewards only sparsely, and does not publicize them very well. >> Right. Moreover, I believe that governments simply cannot exist as we know >> them under these circumstances. Besides, they won't be necessary. > > See, you have far more faith in humanity than I do. I have plenty of faith that once the centralized, heirarchical political structure is demonished, things will be better. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: The Crisis with Remailers
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"bruce(a)aracnet.com" "Bruce Baugh" 22-MAY-1996 17:00:33.67 >Pointing people at legitimate uses of anonymity, as various folks have >suggested, is undoubtedly a good idea. Would anyone care to suggest a few >newsgroups where the vast majority of anonymous posts have really good >reasons for being so? While it isn't usage of true cypherpunk remailers, the sexual abuse survivors newsgroup(s) would appear to be a place to start. Some of the groups discussing human rights cases are also a possibility, as is alt.religion.scientology. -Allen

2 1

Alleged abuse of anonymnity/pseudonymnity
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone's forgetting that it would be smart - and should be possible - for the men in question also to be anonymous/pseudonymous. As it was, they could have been, and were evidently too dumb. Edited for fair use. -Allen >Kansas veterinarian extorts husbands on 'married but looking' chat line >Copyright 1996 Nando.net >Copyright 1996 The Associated Press >(May 21, 1996 10:41 p.m. EDT) Men flirted shamelessly with "Rita" in >America Online's "Married But Looking" computer chat line. The typed chatter >often got steamy, and she even offered them provocative photos of herself. >But some men found that "she" was a "he" -- with printed copies of their >explicit exchanges and blackmail on his mind. >Veterinarian Ron Hornbaker, 29, of Shawnee Mission, Kan., pleaded guilty to >extortion Tuesday in a case that some say illustrates problems in the >unpoliced Internet. He faces two years in prison and fines up to $250,000. >"It's an old crime, just new tools," said assistant U.S. Attorney John >McKenzie, who prosecuted the case in U.S. District Court in Rockford, Ill. [...] >In August 1995, Hornbaker created an America Online profile of himself as a >married woman named Rita, authorities say. He would log into "Married But >Looking" or similar chat areas and start engaging male victims in typed >conversation. After a while, he would ask them to go to a more confidential >area called a private chat room "to get to know each other better. >"There Rita would engage each man in erotic conversation, asking the victim >to get her "hot" and offering a sexy photograph. >Hornbaker, meanwhile, stored the conversation and printed out transcripts. >Victims awaiting the nude photograph instead got a threatening letter. In it, >Hornbaker -- now posing as Rita's enraged husband -- said he'd found a >transcript of the conversation between the victim and Rita. >Hornbaker set up boxes at private mail services to handle the bribes, >usually between $500 and $2,000. None of the recipients paid him.

1 0