December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Petty Civil Disobedience
by Damaged Justice 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jeff Weinstein writes: > > I predict that 6 months after the first internet rating system is widely > deployed, the largest use of search engines such as altavista will be to > look for pages with the most "naughty" ratings. Perhaps such services will > allow text searches for free, but charge for searches based on the rating > tag... Not much crypto relevance, but the CDA has had much more effect than we may realize at first. I regularly read about 25 newsgroups with an extremely wide range of subject matter, and over the last few weeks I have seen literally hundreds of people with things in their .sigs like, "Please excuse this CDA- required obscenity: FUCK." Victimless crime laws (more accurately, "consensual crime laws") have this as their primary effect, I've found, especially when the "crime" in question is especially petty or harmless to others. When the public is treated like a child, it will start acting more like one. The greater the penalty for any transgressions, the more people will start transgressing. Naturally, this doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot in the big picture -- as James Donald has said, if just one out of a hundred tax serfs picked up their gun and said, "I ain't payin'," the IRS would collapse. This hasn't happened because most people aren't into civil disobedience -- or rather, NOT WHEN THEY FEEL THE RISK IS TOO GREAT. But if they perceive little or no risk, they will happily break the law regularly and openly, making no attempt to conceal their activities. Childish, because there are far more meaningful laws they could be ignoring. But the first reaction of a child when it's told it can't do something is to go out and do it. Obviously, very few people feel truly threatened by CDA penalties. -- http://yakko.cs.wmich.edu/~frogfarm ...for the best in unapproved information Tell your friends 'n neighbors you read this on the evil pornographic Internet "Where one burns books, one will also burn people eventually." -Heinrich Heine People and books aren't for burning. No more Alexandrias, Auschwitzs or Wacos.

2 1

Re: (Fwd) Gov't run anon servers
by Rick Tait 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:38 AM 3/5/96 +0100, Gary Howland wrote: >The passphrase could be kept in memory and entered >every time the system is started. > >Gary Right. Couldn't you insert some kind of var into the kernel, rebuild and upon each reboot have the remailer process (which would have to be root owned) check for the value of this? I am of course assuming that the owner of the remailer has admin control over the box, which is kind of unscalable. If someone does gain entry to the machine, he'd need root to skim through the kernel memory, and since he wouldn't have access to the remailer src (you don't have it online, right?) he'd have a hard time looking for what he needed... /rickt _____________________________________________________________________ Rick Tait rickt(a)psa.pencom.com Unix cowboy, Technofuturist, Extropian, Crypto-anarchist, Brit Hacker

1 0

Re: Explosives, Criminality, and Preemptive Action
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:03 AM 3/10/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >My personal belief, from the news reports I've read (which may be >incorrect, of course), is that the ingredients were for use in a bomb, >whether or not they'd ever have gone through with it or not. The ancillary >items found (dozens of assault rifles, weapons manuals, patriot literature, >crank, meth, etc.), and the stockpiling of ANFO precursors, suggests an >Oklahoma City-type scenario. Justa sec, Tim, the second amendment says, "keep and bear _arms_", not merely "guns." My dictionary defines arms as "objects used as weapons." Explosives can be used as weapons, both offensively and defensively. Are you assuming that the possession of ANFO must be offensive? >This is what I think was objective reality. >Now, before certain readers go ballistic, start foaming about how TCMay and >his Tentacles of Medusa are pawns of Bill and Hillary, not to mention spawn >of Satan, etc., I'm not saying that what they did is criminal. Having the >potential to build a bomb or other deadly gadget is not the same as >actually building and using one. But again, it appears that you are assuming that "building a bomb" is not covered in the 2nd amendment. I believe, to the contrary, that it very much is covered, even if this interpretation isn't very much respected. >But should law enforcement have waited until the bomb "the bomb"? Again, you're assuming a lot... What would you say to a person who buys 1000 pounds of AN, who claims to do it because he believes that some day, it might be outlawed or restricted severely by an even-more oppressive government? Is there anything illegitimate in anticipating and preparing for the advent of tyranny? >The argument that because farmers can use these products that the use must >have been an innocent use is a weak one. Anyone with any common sense can >see what they were up to. Who's kidding whom? Again, I disagree. I broadly interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that I should be entitled to possess ANY "objects used as weapons," including chemical (both explosives and poisons), biological, and yes, nuclear. Thus, the possession of bomb-making materials cannot be interpreted as a by-definition-offensive position, and it isn't even clear to be that the 2nd amendment isn't supposed to cover weapons whose "only" use is offensive. Remember, the people who wrote the 2nd had just fought and won a revolution, and they were well aware that people needed the tools to do this if they were to stay free. >Certainly the folks in Oregon will not face much prosecution, as near as I >can figure. The weapons charges may affect their parole (some of them are >ex-cons). The drug amounts are small. And the ANFO precursors....not clear >to me at all that having these is a violation of the laws about explosives, >but maybe it is. Not in Oregon! AN can be bought, without ID, in most places that stock fertilizer. >>This whole situation is nothing more than jackbooted thugs getting a rush by >>stomping on people. FTJBT > >Overly simplistic. Don't misunderstand me: I share your anger at Waco, Ruby >Ridge, gun confiscation, tens of thousands of laws, high taxes, etc. But I >doubt the Oregon bust was a bunch of Waco Warriors assaulting the compound >with tanks and helicopters. True, it wasn't, but that was simply because those people in Oregon didn't choose to defend themselves. Tiny amounts of drugs were found, all of which could have been planted by the cops to justify post-facto the raid. (I'm not saying they WERE planted, merely that police are usually fully prepared for such eventualities. Drugs are usually chosen because they are illegal per-se, and it's easier to sneak in an ounce of pot than 200 pounds of AN. If they don't find anything suspicious, they usually come prepared to make their own evidence. I know, because one of my best friends is an ex-cop who tells me all about this kind of stuff.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Lawz to be.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:55 PM 3/6/96 -0500, Matt Blaze wrote: >> No, what the wording seems to outlaw was the use of encryption to obstruct >> the commission of the crime, not the investigation. Read it again please. >I suppose you could parse it that way if you really wanted to, If you acknowledge that, you are agreeing that a prosecutor could take that position to court, and until the Supreme Court decides he's wrong, he gets to harass citizens. > but it seems to me that the obvious meaning of this rather tortured language: > "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, impede, or > prevent the communication of information in furtherance to a felony which > may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, to an investigative or > law enforcement officer shall..." >is "...willfully endeavoring to obstruct by means of encryption the >communication to an investigative or law enforcement officer information that >is in furtherance of a felony..." But what, exactly, is included in that latter meaning? Does a person who runs an anonymous encrypted remailer, who is fully aware that somebody could be using his system at any moment to break a law, classify as in violation? That's the problem, I think: The government wants to shut down the USE of encryption among those it decides to target, while ostensibly keeping encryption legal. >I think no reasonable person (judge, jury or prosecutor) would interpret >it any other way. You're just as optimistic as Weinstein. I'm not. > Fortunately, the law is not a program that gets run on a >computer. People have to interpret it. That's a mixed blessing. Are you aware of the fact that in the 1930's, the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing corn and feeding it to his pigs was engaging in "interstate commerce" because (the court "reasoned") if he didn't grow the corn it would have to be brought in to the state from another state (or displace other usages which would, themselves, have to need a similar import) so he was doing "interstate commerce." (and just a few years later, in three separate cases, they upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans on the west coast as a preventative measure...) Ignore this all you want, but the fact is that judges are sleazy people who will do exactly what they want to do regardless of how wrong it is. > In the case of this section, the >awkward wording is an artificat of several iterations of narrowing it from >what was originally a rather broad crime (as it still is in the House bill). Whose fingerprints are on this portion of the bill? >I would rather have the awkward (but still clear) wording than a broader crime. I don't want any "new crimes," except possibly those that punish acts by government employees and officeholders. >As it stands, several lawyers whose judgement I trust have told me that this >provision is worded narrowly enough to apply only to people who can already >be conviceted of the underlying crime and who can be proven to have used >encryption for the SOLE purpose of thwarting law enforcement. That's not how the proposed law reads. I realize that what you were given may be the "Walt Disney" version of the law, but reality will be dramatically different, I can assure you. Maybe you ought to ask one of these lawyers if he is willing to write a legal brief describing the "worst-case scenario": What a malicious prosecutor COULD do with this law if he so chose. And remind him that the operators of encrypted remailers don't have the funds to take any appeals to the Supreme Court: Lawyers are usually trained to knee-jerk assume that they can eventually get the "right" decision from the SC, which assumes _they_are_hired_ by a defendant who can afford this route. > I don't like >this new crime (since it still stigmatizes encryption as being something >criminals use), but I can probably live with it. I cannot. I _will_not_. >Personally, on balance, I think the bill, as written, is a big >enough step forward to be worth supporting. >-matt It sounds like you're assuming that this bill is a "take it or leave it" type of proposition. I'm not. I see no reason to come to some sort of a "Siskel and Ebert"-type of thumbs-up/thumbs-down decision on the whole thing. I'll say it again: If the only way this bill can be passed is the inclusion of this particular section, then that must mean that somebody "out there" must want that part REALLY badly. And if they want it that badly, I want it gone even more! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMUMjBvqHVDBboB2dAQGAlgP+IbkQsBm3FPKQNGQe/RvYAYHaoPvWVeZd 86AFx8hqi60nWvWUsAnZ0qGofjaMf1xNW49XKPOhY1lM3uJmeOnp4Wai0UOcwzSM qvUufKkgyeEjC0RJgWqGWg1lKVmHKp4O3mava8jjYv8xQ4yYHP+yvHkAtGN9iLZr 3hjxMBp5S+8= =2Ym6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: Leahy's guillotine.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 01:11 AM 3/10/96 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >Leahy et al.: >> Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, >> impede, or prevent the communication of information in furtherance >> to a felony which may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, >> to an investigative or law enforcement officer shall... > ><Exonive deleted>! > >Let's look at the word "willfully". Among other things, it implies >knowledge; under US law, to be guilty you have to know you did something >that you at least reasonably believe is an activity that you're not supposed >to do. And if the government should take the position that the mere existence of an anonymous encrypted remail allows for illegal use, without detection by the operator, then a person could easily argue that the mere willful OPERATION of that remailer violates the section. >Yes, cops can send you email threatening to use your remailer for >felonious purposes, but if you don't know they've actually done it, >and you haven't agreed with them to provide your encryption services >in support of their felonious action, you're not a willing participant. I disagree. At least, I disagree that this interpretation will be automatically adopted by the government thugs. >Especially if you've got the welcome banner on your remailer page >saying "You may not use this email encryption service for thoughtcrime, >violations of the verbal morality act, idea laundering, anti-abortion activism, >or other felonious or Un-American activities." You're no more a willful >participant than the guy who receives an unordered package of child pornography >mailed by a postal inspector. Which brings up a case from the midwest which (fortunately) was overturned by the SC a few years ago. Seems a person was repeatedly sent ads (in reality, the ads came from the government!) offering some kind of pornographic material. A "long time" later, he eventually "bit" and ordered something. Needless to say, this was enough to get a search warrant, and a prosecution. Question: Despite the fact that this conviction was eventually overturned, don't you think the prospect of a multi-year all-out battle with the prosecutors would be enough to deter people from doing things that they believed might really be legal, but would be looked on with disfavor by equally-sleazy prosecutors? Why is it that I get the impression that the people who don't see this provision as being so bad have no sense of reality? Are they not aware of the various ways prosecutors abuse their positions? >Now, if they make this a felony, surely conspiracy to participate in >such activities could eventually be made illegal, and if the DemoPublicrats >get re-elected, it probably will be some day. But this law doesn't do that yet. In other words, they're aiming the gun at you, but they don't quite yet have their finger on the trigger. When, exactly, do you start worrying? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com Klaatu Burada Nikto -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMUMma/qHVDBboB2dAQGcTQP9E18kw/tyelFbXNRqqEsjwvK9gsig6npR c+aC/B15zgDShJlcPEZXqJboAtE5w0osoEm8wC3uPVhQZNTam1lk0pgQCzCCTjVs KMBDLOBTtzRovxNnq/YmTf01cCLGfFVSFXWa3MNUf0uJtRxgIiN3T7f5NjjlzCLW 4vWenZVpzi8= =530O -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Bell, Detweiler, Ravings, and Whatnot
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I appologize for being trolled into more Assassination Politics discussion. I'll try to sit down, and be quiet and good. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Leahy's guillotine.
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:11 AM 3/10/96 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >Now, if they make this a felony, surely conspiracy to participate in >such activities could eventually be made illegal, and if the DemoPublicrats >get re-elected, it probably will be some day. But this law doesn't do that >yet. As far as I can tell, whether a pol is Republican or Democrat tells us nothing about how s/he stands on issues such as free speech and free crypto. I am feeling friendly toward Lehey and Weld these days and hostile toward Feinstein and Buchannan. We need to treat them as individuals. We need to learn and publicize their positions on the issues that interest us. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Assassination Politics(tm) was V-chips, CC, and Motorcycle Helmets
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:26 PM 3/8/96 -0400, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"jimbell(a)pacifier.com" "jim bell" 16-FEB-1996 03:25:12.58 >>At 02:18 PM 2/15/96 -0800, Bill Frantz wrote: Since my name keeps getting dragged into this discussion, I will share with youall the conclusions I reached after my last set of exchanges with Jim Bell. (1) Assassination Politics (AP) will be most useful to a fired-up group of people who want to silence a single person. Madeline Murray O'Hare comes to mind. (She was a Texas atheist who challenged school prayer and won.) (2) Jim Bell and I disagree strongly on the market price for assassinations. (3) Jim Bell and I disagree on the number of deaths needed to deter someone who believes in what they do. In our discussion, this question comes down to: are IRS employees more like corporate consultants or like soldiers. (4) I think that if someone can be traced as profiting from a AP death, e.g. through winning a gamble on the date/time of death, that person's whereabouts at the time of death will be carefully investigated. (5) While killing someone whose name and residence are known is easy, and the killer is likely to get away with it, does that mean that killing someone who has been marked as having a price on her head is as easy? I assume her friends and neighbors will protect her. The TV cameras will be running 24 hours a day. This will, at a minimum raise the price of assassinations. Regards (that means you too, Jim Bell) - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

re: Bootable disks
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>In Mar. 5 (?) Edupage, there's a blurb about a floppy drive that is >compat with 1.44M disks but can also handle special 80M disks, allegedly >available in April. Several years ago Insite had a "floptical" drive that could handle both regular 3 1/2" and special 20Mb flopical drives. Iomega followed suit and there was an industry spec. Compression would yeid 40 Mb capacity to a marketeer. (Can tell a floptical disk easily - the write protect slide is on the other side). Was a great idea then that was marred by U$500 for the drive and U$20 for the cartriges. Never flew. Three years development would give 80 Mb easily (100 Mb Iomega "ZIP" disks could have been put in a normal 3 1/2 case - is a lot of waste space on either side. Think it was kind of dumb that they didn't but suppose there is a marketing reason - probably the same marketeers that insisted that each new Bernoulli be incompatable with earlier ones.) Major difference is that the floptical could be made bootable but then it had a special SCSI card, did not plug into the normal floppy controller & have to tell the BIOS that drive B was not there. The card then added a BIOS extension similar to what I mentioned in an earlier post to access the disk. For that matter, any drive that has a controller on the bus *could* be made bootable with a PROM. It is only those that plug into the parallel port - all of which require special drivers - that would need "help". Warmly, Padgett

1 0

Re: Another Motivation for the CDA
by Mutant Rob 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Timothy C. May wrote: > > Given that Sen. Fineswine is one of the strongest supporters of gun > confiscation, and that she had this to say about the Telecom Bill:[..] Felons may not own a gun unless granted a waiver by certain judges. They also lose the right to vote, BTW. I think you're reading too much into motives, Tim. I don't think that most in congress are capable of thinking that elaborately, and besides, if someone is convicted of violating the CDA for saying "fuck" online, that is the type of felony that one can get a judge's waiver for... - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMT2XCCoZzwIn1bdtAQFkNQF9E31snnxksyX8FREMyloHZg1YnSzAqDDb 30qKVbtDhUN2dLd8ic6afX7MsnKkJWEZ =weLu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0