December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

two people
by bryce＠digicash.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.19 - 27 Reps Urge President to Abandon Key-Escrow Encryption Policy
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:35 PM 5/17/96 -0400, Bob Palacios wrote: > CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 19 May 17, 1996 > >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. You know, I really would appriciate it if CDT didn't present S1587 as if it is just another "relax restrictions on encryption" bill. We raked that bill over the coals, found it seriously flawed, and generally pro-encryption people don't seem to be defending it at all. It contained many aspects which have the prospect of future danger to the use of encryption. And, S. 1726 seems to contain most of the desireable aspects of S.1587, and few of the negatives. Add to that the fact that Leahy (as described above) seems to be supporting S. 1726, there is no need to make it appear to an uninformed person that S. 1587 that it is anything other than a mistake. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Crypto-News: Congress tells Clinton "Dump key escrow/Clipper schemes" (5/17/96)
by Voters Telecommunications Watch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

============================================================================= ____ _ _ _ / ___|_ __ _ _ _ __ | |_ ___ | \ | | _____ _____ | | | '__| | | | '_ \| __/ _ \ _____| \| |/ _ \ \ /\ / / __| | |___| | | |_| | |_) | || (_) |_____| |\ | __/\ V V /\__ \ \____|_| \__, | .__/ \__\___/ |_| \_|\___| \_/\_/ |___/ |___/|_| TWENTY-SEVEN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES URGE CLINTON TO ABANDON KEY ESCOW AND "IMMEDIATELY LIBERALIZE EXPORT CONTROLS ON ENCRYPTION PROGRAMS AND PRODUCTS" Date: May 17, 1996 URL:http://www.crypto.com/ crypto-news(a)panix.com If you redistribute this, please do so in its entirety, with the banner intact. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents News Text of letter from House members to President Clinton Text of press release from Rep. Goodlatte How to receive crypto-news ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWS Today a band of twenty-seven House members signed a letter to President Clinton urging him to abandon key escrow schemes, and immediately liberalize export controls on encryption programs and products. The letter argues that "a key escrow approach will not adequately address security concerns", citing security as a "prerequisite to exploiting the potential of the Global Information Infrastructure." Rep. Goodlatte led many of the signatories on the letter to introduce and cosponsor H.R. 3011, the Security and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act" earlier this year, which liberalizes export controls on encryption products. Copies of the letter to the President, the press release, and H.R. 3011 can be found on the Encryption Policy Resource Page at http://www.crypto.com/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TEXT OF LETTER FROM HOUSE MEMBERS TO PRESIDENT CLINTON Congress of the United States Washington, DC 20515 May 15, 1996 The Honorable William J. Clinton The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. President: We are writing to ask you not to proceed with your Administration's key escrow encryption policy proposal and instead to immediately liberalize export controls on non-key escrow encryption programs and products. Many of us have sponsored H.R. 3011, the "Security and Freedom Though Encryption (SAFE) Act" which would ensure the continued ability of Americans to use and sell good encryption and would permit the export of generally available software with encryption capabilities and other such software and hardware under license when certain conditions are met. We understand that the Administration has developed a key escrow encryption proposal and is not at this time willing to ease export restrictions on encryption programs and products which are widely available from domestic and foreign companies and the Internet. We share the concerns of a wide range of businesses and privacy interests that a key escrow approach will not adequately address security concerns. 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. For example, U.S. small businesses are beginning to harness the Internet to enter foreign markets. The Internet in effect lowers the barriers to entry for these companies. But they will not be able to rely on the Internet if their information is not secure. We also have serious concerns about the impact of the Administration's policy on the U.S. economy and job creation. (Indeed, it is our strong belief the U.S. economic interests must be a primary consideration in encryption policy discussions with other countries, the OECD, and in other forums. It is not clear that this has been the case in the discussions held up to this point). A recent report entitled "A Study of the International Market for Computer Software With Encryption" prepared by the U.S. Department of Commerce and the National Security Agency indicated that U.S. companies will lose market share given the availability of stronger encryption products overseas. The Computer Systems Policy Project estimates that unless the U.S. relaxes out-of-date export controls, the U.S. technology industry will lose $60 billion in revenues and 200,000 jobs by the year 2000. As Congress begins to consider H.R. 3011 we would greatly appreciate knowing whether the Administration plans to publish a final rule implementing a key escrow encryption proposal or, alternatively, will relax export controls on encryption programs and products which do not have a key escrow feature. Sincerely, Tom Campbell Bob Goodlatte Anna Eshoo Eliot Engel Zoe Lofgren Bob Barr Carlos Moorhead Patricia Schroeder Barney Frank Sam Gejdenson Howard Coble Rick Boucher Fred Heineman Sonny Bono Vernon Ehlers Randy Cunningham Charlie Norwood Randy Tate Donald Manzullo Helen Chenoweth Thomas Davis Roscoe Bartlett Sam Farr Ken Calvert Linda Smith Joseph Moakley Lynn Woolsey ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- TEXT OF PRESS RELEASE FROM REP. GOODLATTE NEWS FROM: Congressman Bob Goodlatte Virginia's 6th District 123 Cannon HOB Washington, D.C. 25515 Phone: (202) 225-5431 DATE: May 16, 1996 CONTACT: Doug Clark 202-225-5431 REP. GOODLATTE ASKS PRESIDENT NOT TO PROCEED WITH ENCRYPTION POLICY Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), lead sponsor of S.A.F.E., the Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act, was joined by Tom Campbell (R-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Anne Eshoo (D-CA), Bob Barr (R-GA), Eliot Engle (D-NY), and a bipartisan group of 21 of their colleagues in the House in writing President Clinton asking him not to proceed with his Administration's key escrow encryption policy proposal and instead to immediately liberalize export controls on non-key escrow encryption programs and products. "I have received recent information that the Administration is circulating yet another version of a key escrow proposal for comments from selected individuals. In my opinion this proposal is a non-starter and will not do. It's just a back door approach for more big government intrusion into every American's privacy," said Goodlatte. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TO RECEIVE CRYPTO-NEWS To subscribe to crypto-news, sign up from our WWW page (http://www.crypto.com) or send mail to majordomo(a)panix.com with "subscribe crypto-news" in the body of the message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- End crypto-news =============================================================================

1 0

Re: Senator, your public key please?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:10 AM 5/18/96, t byfield wrote: > There's no reason that webs of trust of well-signed keys couldn't be >very fluidly incorporated into patronage networks, for example, or that >their incorporation would affect network dynamics in any notable way. One Keys, key signings, and webs of trust can be used in all sorts of ways. And I expect the "burrowcrats" will try to regulate the use. Imagine, for example, if I use a "web of trust" to help me decide who's trustworthy enough to negotiate the sale of my house to. Further imagine that I want to see keys signed by Tom Metzger, my buddy from the Aryan Nations. Guess what? No blacks will have their keys signed, and hence I'll have to tell them, "Sorry, you're just not in my web of trust." (Now, this is a hypothetical, meant to show that use of a web of trust can trigger such decisions, and could thus trigger legal challenges.) The web of trust may not be transitive, but the "web of taint" may be more so. New forms of blackballing, blacklisting, redlining, etc. And I fully expect that who signs one's keys, and whose signatures are found on one's keys, may become a political and legal issue in the coming years. What if, for example, Sen. Leahy _did_ end up in the web of trust for Aryan Nation? Even if he never intended it, this could have some severe PR repercussions. An exciting new world we're entering. --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."

3 3

Re: SEVERE undercapacity, we need more remailer servers FAST
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:44 PM 5/17/96 -0500, snow wrote: > How about this as an idea: > > Get a few (3 to 5) accounts in a high density market (i.e. lots of >ISP's locally) set up a unix machine on a cheap machine. Have the anon >messages get sent to the pop accounts. Once an hour (or less depending on >budget) have the unix box poll the different pop accounts mix the messages >and resend them the next hour. > This could be further obfuscated by batching the messages up and >posting a whole chunk of messages to a different similar remailer else >where, or by just plopping an encrypted tar'd file on a ftp site where >another remailer grabs them and splits and remails them. It seems to me that if we consider that there are two separate functions remailers provide: 1. Anonymization. 2. Jurisdiction swapping Then perhaps one way to improve the robustness of remailers against copyright-type legal attacks is to provide remailers with temporary (1-2 week) remail-only sites. All material would be processed by the front end, then delivered in bulk to the other site. This sounds similar to the idea you described. That way, the remailer's "front end" can stay around for years, developing reputation. Any attack on copyright would simply be an attack on the back end, which wouldn't last anyway. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

(Fwd) Mail Delivery Failure.
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 15 May 96 at 19:01, Mark M. wrote: > > . What if a company does not pay as expected - > > A company could not afford to have such a loss of reputation. > Nobody is going to work for a company that doesn't pay its > employees. Yes, but anonymity would prevent the easy build-up of reputation too: If Joe Anon9876 say: "company ANON1234 Inc screwed me, how peoples will know that it is not a unscrupulous competitor trying to damage their reputation? Now, if Joe Anon9876 decides to disclose to the public that his real name is John Doe to give more weight to his denounciation, and depending on wether or not his bosses *are* or are not crooks, he might very well get some sort of "prediction" on his head. Now, Jim Bell's servers don't have to be completely public. Suppose some servers were built so that the donation address would be known but the list of donation would be kept secret: Such server could thrive. Most "donation" here would not be 2 bucks but rather 20,000 bucks to ensure that the contract would get taken up promptly. And since the targets would not be published, there would be not even a hint that company ANON1234 *might* have put a contract on John Doe (Now, aka Joe Anon9876) . The fact that an open AP server exists makes the later possibility also possible. To have access to the target list would require to be member of a *very* close circle, or maybe, actually, just en employee of ANON_KILLERS4567_Inc. Reputation is standing on the fact that an entity disclose it's existence, accepts to act in full view of significant others, and is prepared to show evidence of good conduct to said significant others. And also on the fact that a challenger to the reputation have to put his own on the opposite platter of the balance. Anonymity makes it hard to do. 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.

3 2

Netscape 128-bit
by zalchgar＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Do you have to buy the 128 domestic version of Netscape? They used to make it available on their FTP sites, but now they are all 40-bit exportable versions. If you don't have to buy it what is the procedure to get it? -Erinn L.T

1 0