December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [History] USPS tried to monopolize email? (c. 1981)
by Erik E. Fair 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The U.S. Postal Service's first attempt at E-mail was called "E-COM" (ca. 1984), and it amounted to an electronic submission system for mail that would then be printed, stuffed into envelopes, and delivered in the usual way - but done so at the regional centers. It was geared toward 3rd class mass mailings, and was a dismal failure. While it was cheaper than standard 3rd class mailings, the mailings were output on Printronix dot-matrix line printers, and they looked terrible. Who knows? If they'd invested in laser printers instead... Some of you who were on the UUCP/USENET at the time may remember a small company on the UUCP network in Rockville, MD called "netword", which would accept E-mail for E-COM and deliver it for free; the deal was that the input batches to E-COM had to be of a certain size, and the "netword" folks rounded out their batches with the stuff from the net. Eventually, E-COM was sold (I seem to recall the Netword people bidding on it), and it disappeared shortly thereafter. I know about this story because Netword was a customer of another company which has also since disappeared: Dual Systems of Berkeley, California, makers of a Motorola 68000-based, Version 7 (and later System V) UNIX system on the S-100 (IEEE-696) bus. I worked for Dual from March '83 to June '85 - my first job out of college. Erik Fair fair(a)clock.org

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by loki＠infonex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

One should also note that the surplus beyond subsistence was much smaller at that time. A more useful figure might be the percent tax on surplus. If the serf was taxed at 10%, but only had a 5% surplus above survival needs, then he was in a difficult position. Unfortunately I see no chance of an agreement on how to define surplus. -Lance At 7:20 AM 5/6/96, jamesd(a)echeque.com wrote: >At 11:16 PM 5/5/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> SANDY SANDFORT >> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >> >>C'punks, >> >>On Sun, 5 May 1996, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> >>> didn't the feudal vassels only pay 33% ? >> >>Actually, no. When I used to edit a magazine, I commissioned an >>article about how much "tax" slaves, serfs, etc. paid. That is, >>how much of what they produced, did they get to keep; how much >>went to their masters. The surprising, cross-cultural answer my >>researcher/writer found was that they got to keep everthing they >>produced except 5-10%. That's a lot better, percentage-wise, >>than for modern "tax slaves." > > >In the early feudal period, ordinary knights did not live well. >They were only moderately better off than peasants, and yet to support one >knight, you needed a startlingly large number of peasants, a fact >that kings were continually unhappy about and continually trying >to fix. > >While it is difficult to assess the tax rate, because taxes were >in kind, it was clearly very low by modern standards. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > | >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 ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Rep. Loretta Sanchez Hits Crypto Controls
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Sanchez statement is from House Report 105-108, Part 3, published September 12 by the National Security Committee, which describes the Weldon-Dellums amendment to SAFE. See the full report at: http://jya.com/hr105-108-pt3.htm The report includes a cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Officefor implementing SAFE. However, as far as I can tell, the estimate does not include the cost of a GAK system, and covers only the cost of export controls. Thus, it appears to be vastly misleading. SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF HON. LORETTA SANCHEZ Many of us when we think of encryption imagine the ``ENIGMA'' code breaking machines of World War Two or the American Indian ``code talkers'' that helped us anticipate and defeat Nazi and Imperial Japanese attacks. Those methods were mechanical or human-based, and often depended on simple arithmetical slight of hand to trick the enemy. Today, encryption is complex mathematical algorithms that have become an entirely new branch of mathematics involving intense academic study. Until recently encryption was limited to governments and large companies through U.S. export limitations and by the limitations of existing hardware and software technologies. All that began to change as the desktop computer became more prevalent and the computing power available to the average user jumped by leaps and bounds every year. When discussing the power of the PC observers of the information technology industry often predict that the computing power of microprocessors would double roughly every 18 months. Because of this the rapidly developing speed and growth of computers, the age of the ``unbreakable code'' has long since passed. Manufacturers of encryption technology are engaged in a rapidly accelerating race to develop the newest and strongest code that can withstand attacks from the increasingly powerful computers of the day. And it isn't just big companies and governments that have the technology to break codes. Last January, a graduate student broke a 40-bit code in just three- and-a-half hours, the toughest code form American companies at the time were allowed to export. Today, American companies are the world leaders in encryption technology, but other companies and nations are catching up. Strong encryption products and knowledge about the science of cryptography is not limited to the United States. A savvy computer user anywhere in the world can with just a few clicks of the mouse find U.S. export-embargoed encryption. Many freelancing code hackers maintain off-shore Internet meeting sites to discuss the newest holes in encryption products. The proposed export controls which the Administration argues helps to keep strong encryption out of the hands of foreign adversaries will have little or no effect. Strong encryption is available abroad and US companies are being put at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace. With this bleak and seemingly hopeless picture in mind how do we protect ourselves from the threat of rogue nations and other adversaries cloaking their communications from American National Security efforts? The only viable solution is through supporting a robust and aggressively competitive cryptography industry in the United States. We must ensure that the United States continues to maintain the deepest pool of cryptographic experts in the world. American export limitations will only serve to create a brain drain of these precious resources as leading scientists leave our shores for more lucrative and accommodating surroundings. All of us care about our national security and no one wants to make it any easier for criminals and terrorists to commit criminal acts. But we must also recognize encryption technologies as an increasingly sharp double-edged sword. It can also aid law enforcement and protect national security by limiting the threat of industrial espionage and foreign spying, but only when Americans are able to produce the sharpest swords and the strongest encryption. I would also like to state for the record that for the reasons stated above, I do not support the Dellums-Weldon Amendment to H.R. 695, and would have voted against it. Loretta Sanchez. ----------

3 2

Arguments _against_ privacy, anyone?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 6-MAY-1996 01:21:22.00 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Sun, 5 May 96 02:28 PDT From: privacy(a)vortex.com (PRIVACY Forum) Subject: PRIVACY Forum Digest V05 #10 PRIVACY Forum Digest Sunday, 5 May 1996 Volume 05 : Issue 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 21 Apr 1996 15:58:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Subject: Call for bad arguments against privacy In my online newsletter, The Network Observer, I periodically summarize and rebut bad arguments against a broad right to privacy. At the end of this message I've included a partial list of the arguments I have discussed so far. I would like to gather another batch of arguments, probably for the July 1996 issue of TNO, and I am hoping that you can help me. Please send me any bad arguments against privacy rights that you have encountered, even if you can't quite figure out what's wrong with them, and even if you don't have a specific example ready to hand. Arguments concerning specific issues such as government records, medical privacy, and video surveillance are particularly welcome. Once I finish this next set of arguments and rebuttals, I'll gather the whole set into a "handbook" that can be distributed freely on the Internet. Thanks very much. Phil Agre Encl: The Network Observer can be found on the Web at: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/tno.html The privacy articles can be found indexed a little ways down the page. Here are most of the arguments that I have discussed in past issues: * "We've lost so much of our privacy anyway." * "Privacy is an obsolete Victorian hang-up." * "Ideas about privacy are culturally specific and it is thus impossible to define privacy in the law without bias." * "We have strong security on our data." * "National identity cards protect privacy by improving authentication and data security." * "Informational privacy can be protected by converting it into a property right." * "We have to balance privacy against industry concerns." * "Privacy paranoids want to turn back the technological clock." * "Most people are privacy pragmatists who can be trusted to make intelligent trade-offs between functionality and privacy." * "Our lives will inevitably become visible to others, so the real issue is mutual visibility, achieving a balance of power by enabling us to watch the people who are watching us." * "Once you really analyze it, the concept of privacy is so nebulous that it provides no useful guidance for action." * "People *want* these systems, as indicated by the percentage of them who sign up for them once they become available." * "Concern for privacy is anti-social and obstructs the building of a democratic society." * "Privacy regulation is just one more category of government interference in the market, which after all is much better at weighing individuals' relative preferences for privacy and everything else than bureaucratic rules could ever be." * "There's no privacy in public." * "We favor limited access." * "Privacy in these systems has not emerged as a national issue." [ Submissions that would be interesting to the general readership of the PRIVACY Forum would also be very welcome here. -- MODERATOR ] ------------------------------ End of PRIVACY Forum Digest 05.10 ************************

1 0

Re: Nando.net on expatriate tax issue
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"unicorn(a)schloss.li" "Black Unicorn" 29-APR-1996 02:16:40.69 >On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > >Billionaires' tax loophole could complicate passage of health reform >What precisely does this reporter think is being "tightened" in his or her >version of the House bill? (Note that in current law there is no $500,000 >floor). In fact the reporter hasn't bothered to describe what the >provision really does. (Imposes a expatriation is taxable event >analysis). Talk about a snow job. I won't say it is or is not advertant, >but it's bloody annoying. Fascinating. One wonders how the House managed to convince the CBO that it would gain money... it did. > >The House version would be extremely difficult to enforce and would allow > >patient expatriates to avoid the tax by holding their assets for 10 years > >before selling, they say. In the interim, they could raise cash by > >borrowing against the assets. >Which is the law today. What is with this guy? Get your facts straight >media. I have relatives who went to journalism school during the Depression. I begin to see why they complain about modern media, and why Heinlein said that Time _never_ got the story right on anything he saw in person. Modern journalism schools are going more and more to communication theory courses as opposed to how to write and how to get the facts straight. -Allen

1 0

Re: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture?
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca" 29-APR-1996 02:04:15.24 To: IN%"EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu" "E. ALLEN SMITH" CC: IN%"cypherpunks(a)toad.com" Subj: RE: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture? Received: from tesla.cc.uottawa.ca by mbcl.rutgers.edu (PMDF #12194) id <01I43C5TODPC8WWL2O(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu>; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:12 EDT Received: by tesla.cc.uottawa.ca (AIX 3.2/UCB 5.64/4.03) id AA25041; Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:17:36 -0400 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 23:17:36 -0400 (EDT) From: s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca Subject: RE: CryptoAnarchy: What's wrong with this picture? In-reply-to: <01I43B16HT2U8Y53CU(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu> Sender: s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca To: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH(a)mbcl.rutgers.edu> Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Reply-to: s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca Message-id: <Pine.3.89.9604282225.B28833-0100000(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca> X-Envelope-to: EALLENSMITH Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Mime-Version: 1.0 On Sun, 28 Apr 1996, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> Currently, yes... but the divide between rich and poor is growing. >> (So long as this divide is determined by merit, and the poor still have >> enough to survive, I'd call this a good trend. So would various other >> people on this list, perhaps without my caveats.) In other words, the >> middle class is going >I agree with your caveat. It's where the anarchists get me skeptical. The poor still having enough to survive is the most significant reason I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. There are a few others, but that's the main one. >Someone sent me some US income tax figures. It would seem that the vast >majority of personal taxes are paid by the rich and high-end upper-middle. >So I'll eat my words and agree with you, talking about the rich makes >quite a bit of sense. I sort of do wonder how many of those "corporations" >are small businesses and individuals working as companies. Time for me to >go find a national stats book. Despite its agreeing with my point (thank you), I'm not sure if I'd consider income taxes to be enough of the story to go by them alone. Federal level, yes; state & local, probably not. I am willing to bet that property taxes are mainly paid by the relatively wealthy, given how much of personal capital tends to get tied up in a home. Sales taxes are more evenly distributed. However, the economic changes I discuss should result in this becoming true, even if it might not be completely true currently. >Of course only talking about the rich makes things so much easier. Yes. In a capitalist society based on merit, the rich are the ones who matter in the long run. -Allen

1 0

info
by Alexis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can anyone help me out or tutor me in Hacking, phreaking, cracking, and cryptography, I know that you need to know all for to become a good hacker, I also heard that you guys don't mind teaching others. THanks Alexis.

1 0

Over 100 Adult Internet Channels Free!!
by 22345494＠mailexcite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.schoolgirlz.com This is the newest and most comprehensive Adult Site Offer Available on the net.... 110 WILD XXX RATED LIVE CHANNELS - 2 ALL BLONDE CHANNELS 2 MULTIPLE GIRL CHANNELS - 2 CHANNELS OF REDHEADS AND BRUNNETTES 1 ALL BLACK CHANNEL - 1 INTERNATIONAL GIRLS FROM AROUND THE W0RLD 2 TEEN CHANNELS (18 AND 19 YR OLD BABES) - 4 CHANNELS REAL SEX SHOWS-MALE/FEMALE-LESBIAN) http://www.schoolgirlz.com

1 0

STEL b5 released
by cert-it＠dsi.unimi.it 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- STEL beta5 has been released. 1. WHAT IS STEL? STEL is a free telnet surrogate which provides strong mutual authentication, encryption, secure file transfer, automatic s/Key password generation, centralization and management of s/Key passwords and more. 2. WHERE IS STEL AVAILABLE? STEL is available as: ftp://idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it/cert-it/stel.tar.gz Please note that ftp.dsi.unimi.it is not supporting security stuff anymore. All the security archive has been moved to idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it. 3. WHAT IS THE STATUS OF STEL? The latest version of STEL is beta 5. It has been (quite) extensively tested on the following systems: hpux sunos4 solaris24 solaris25 irix linux aix It has been reported to work (but no testing) on: ultrix freebsd bsdi Bug reports, comments and suggestions should be sent to: stel-authors(a)idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it - -- ******************************************************** ******** Computer Emergency Response Team ITALY ******** ******************************************************** E-mail: cert-it(a)idea.dsi.unimi.it Mailing list: unix-security-request(a)idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it Ftp: ftp://idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it WWW: http://idea.sec.dsi.unimi.it - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.3 mQBNAi1eowgAAAECAOTEMFRZHfBb+ndAmdk3vl20EpynEWwB3ZJo/ocZUXgSjBKS op11p19WyyTV9eW2Sosu9GoC4i7VLDiuFRfmKZUABRG0HkNFUlQtSVQgPGNlcnQt aXRAZHNpLnVuaW1pLml0PokAVQIFEC1epVbakBlHrAS41wEBnskB/iXnREAs044y ngOa8uJtYwFaDKc15GUKx9VV2klikcoWKPgaD6WjFs82HmdY86IQL2bFTi8FTKS2 2auGllxW2zaJAJUCBRAtXqV3kbMTtv2Q670BAccAA/sFW+OVkfr8FnClSAlD7fQc /PL0y8qDF4hYx3tIw1utM5zRGlti+KIOpuUIkQpIX4j8f9lIe/cihL5rlusQFsX4 d7cEJWW8GUM3+/mv89jM0ds6IX9KjfJAQPvPFr5rlRgmHdVm9K4ugCTkOzGsv1E4 o5+ZCN5dJW0+EbmjoghwoA== =WPYC - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQBVAwUBMY4wESw4rhUX5imVAQFs1gIAuYqr5IAWRoFQzm71sWdBJCOKTCq/G4ti eucdKJ+5FlmyeQUavWseepozKF019KXElfoHkDVdjl8bnyhFIm7u1w== =nQd0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: alias servers (al la alias.c2.org)
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"des(a)juno.com" 27-APR-1996 04:36:45.71 >On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:30:38 -0400 (EDT) Black Unicorn ><unicorn(a)schloss.li> writes: >>Is anyone besides c2.org running an alias server? >There's a few of them - nym.gondolin.org, nym.alias.net, and >alias.alias.net are the others that leap to mind just now. >Of course, having just previewed the Juno "free-email" >service, I might count it also. How much information do they actually want, and how much do they check? I seem to recall that they wanted some info for giving to the advertisers and for targeting the advertising. -Allen

1 0