December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: plugging in
by Alex Strasheim 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Indeed -- the notion is that one could do things like put support for > encrypted/signed pages or other cryptographic tools (I haven't checked > if Netscape mail handles plugins, too) directly into Netscape where > ordinary users could smoothly use them. Doing tech support at my ISP has made me very skeptical of anything that requires a plug in. Most people aren't willing or able to download and install them. Obviously that's not a problem for large organizations who want to run something internally -- they can make people install them and provide support to make sure it happens. But if you want to publish to the mainstream of people who use the net, using a plug in is a very bad idea. (I don't know anyone that doesn't design web pages for a living who's installed the shockwave plugin, for example. I'm sure that people do, just not the people I know. Only a marketing hack would download a couple of megabyte plug in to look at a soda company's web page.) SSL has a lot of problems (Verisign's pound of flesh, signatures on sites rather than documents, etc.), and those problems make a PGP based system attractive. But SSL's ubiquity (is that a word?) and the inherent kludginess of a PGP based plug-in make me think that the latter wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of catching on.

2 1

Comments on MicroPayments and the Web
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I do not see micropayment schemes gaining any acceptance in the long run. Here is why... 1) I expect a few scam artists out there to pull something like with what has been done with 976 numbers. Put up something that looks like a "hot page" and then charge you lots of cash when you hit the site. (Instead of a fraction of a cent, a quarter or twenty bucks?) If they are a heavy web surfer, the ream of paper needed to find the offending page would be pretty obnoxious. Most would just pay the bill. (Leading to even more scams of this type.) 2) If a dialog comes up for each site that wants to ding you for a bit of money, these sites are going to resemble the pay toilets of the net. People will go there if they have to, but avoid them (or crawl under with an old browser) if they can. All in all, it just sounds like another scam dreamed up by someone in marketing to Make Money Fast off the Internet. --- |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

2 1

You bet they have/are: NSA/CIA to snoop INSIDE the U.S.???
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

** Reply by attila to note from Anonymous User <nobody(a)c2.org> 06/08/96 5:05pm -0700 anyone who believes the FBI and a host of other U.S. agencies even less scrupulous does not wiretap without permits, has been standing behind the door. generally, it does not matter if the information learned is admissable in court --they never admit wiretapping in the first place as the agency themselves, in many cases, *did*not*wiretap* --but the agency does buy info from usually unsavory "contractors" who do wiretap. as for the NSA/CIA spying on US citizens --they dont, they spy on British citizens with facilities provided by M5 and M6. in return, British M5/6 agents spy on U.S. citizens from Langely or Gaithersberg, or wherever. The fact they just happen to share information is an "accident." so, why legalize it? --if it aint broke, don't fix it. when the great sleeping, well-fed dog awakes in slavery, they will look for the "false"-prophets who have long since been purged by the adversary government --and fools like Baker-Halle will be in power (temporarily). --- original post by anon-remailer --- = : This is a fucking big story. = : Allowing the CIA and NSA to snoop domestically, and using only a handful of = : suspicions and anecdotes about cybernastiness and evil cryptohackers to = : justify this major policy shift -- well, it's fucking amazing. = : Nunn's proposal, unfortunately, was more than a "suggestion." = = This is very serious. Why has there not been more discussion about = this on the list? = = How close/far is this from becoming law? = = If they are now trying to make it legal for the CIA and NSA to snoop = inside the US I would guess that it's happening already. Remember = wiretaps? Do it now and they will make it legal later. -- The result of today's 'government' is new world disorder, unfolding at warp velocity.

3 3

Britain to control crypto - official (fwd from Usenet)
by David Lesher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The British government quietly announced yesterday that it will legislate to restrict crypto. The details are in the attached Reuters and PA newswires. Fuller details will no doubt be available at a one day workshop that the Ministry of Defence is organising at the IEE in Savoy Place on the 27th June. The speakers will include directors of both CESG (GCHQ's front operation) and DRA, as well as a policeman and the data protection registrar. The IEE's phone number is 0171 240 1871. Ross RTf 06/10 1355 UK to license information encryption services LONDON, June 10 (Reuter) - The British government unveiled proposals on Monday aimed at meeting the demand for encryption services to safeguard the confidentiality of electronic information transmitted on public telecommunications networks. Technology minister Ian Taylor published a paper proposing a licensing system for so-called "Trusted Third parties," or TTPs, to provide encryption services. "The TTPs would offer digital signature, data integrity and retrieval, key management and other services for which there is a commercial demand," Taylor said in a written parliamentary answer. Taylor said encryption services would facilitate the development of electronic commerce, thus helping to maintain Britain's competitiveness. The licensing policy would aim to protect consumers as well as to preserve the ability of intelligence and law enforcement agencies to fight serious crime and terrorism, Taylor said. This would be done by establishing procedures for disclosure to them of the encryption keys, under safeguards similar to those which already exist under the Interception of Communications Act, he added. Taylor said officials in his department had already held preliminary discussions with industry groups on the concepts set out in Monday's paper. Following consultation by the Department of Trade and Industry on detailed proposals, the government intends to bring forward legislation, Taylor added. PA 06/10 1808 MOVE TO STRENGTHEN INFORMATION SECURITY By Parliamentary Staff, PA News The Government tonight announced plans to strenthen the security of information sent electronically over public telecommunications networks. Technology Minister Ian Taylor, in a Commons written reply, disclosed proposals to licence trusted third parties to provide encryption services -- the process of transforming text into an unintelligible form that can only subsequently be recovered by someone possessing the corresponding decryption key. These services cover the digital signature, an electronic equivalent of a hand-written signature, of electronic documents and the protection of the accuracy and privacy of contents. Mr Taylor said: "There is a growing demand for encryption services to safeguard the integrity and confidentiality of electronic information transmitted on public telecommunications networks. "The Government therefore proposes to make arrangements for licensing trusted third parties who would provide such services." These would include digital signature, data integrity and retrieval and key management services. "The licensing policy will aim to protect consumers as well as to preserve the ability of the intelligence and law enforcement agencies to fight serious crime and terrorism by establishing procedures for disclosure to them of the encryption keys, under safeguards similar to those which already exist for warranted interception under the Interception of Communications Act." Mr Taylor, who disclosed publication of a paper, said it was intended to bring forward proposals for legislation after consultation on detailed policy proposals. The Trade and Industry Department said increased use of IT systems by British business and commerce was a major factor in their improved competitive position, but had brought increased security risks -- especially concerning integrity and confidentiality of information passed electronically between trading bodies. Prime candidates to be trusted third parties could include banks, network operators and trade associations. -- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz(a)nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433

4 4

Re: SafE Mail Corporation
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C'punks, At 05:21 PM 6/17/96 -0400, M.Wagoner (1) wrote: > >We would like someone to be able or should I say try and >crack our encryption. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. >Our Web site is http://www.sfmc.com Phone number is >1-800-252-9938. So I pulled up the Web site to see what sort of reward they offered to the successful cracker. Under the heading "Attention `Hackers'" they said if you crack their unbreakable SafE Mail code, you get 5 free copies of ... SafE Mail! Oh, that's a really primo prize, broken software. Duh. Since cracking their encryption is IMPOSSIBLE, I suggest they make the stakes interesting--$100,000, or hell, a cool million. After all, it's unbreakable. It's not like they will have to pay up or anything. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

2 1

Re: "Termination"?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:54 PM 6/17/96 -0400, s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote: > > >On Sat, 8 Jun 1996 ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: > >> Since corrupt officials are likely to have more anonymous cash that >> phreedom phighters, guess who will win. Remember, Chudov was wrong about this. It's not just the amount of money you have, it's whether you can identify people as your "enemies." >> Also, think about this: lots of people have someone they'd like >> to assassinate but do not actually do it because of lack of anonymity >> and associated hassles (like dealing with assassins non-anonymously, >> abundance of traces, possible confession of the assassin and so on). >> With your assassination clearinghouse these hassles go away. I think it >> would present an excellent prospect for reducing the population. > >I could see an easy possibility for sting operations with the added >feature that you can have assassinated all the supected assassins (ie anybody >that may have come near whatever surveillance there may have been). >Why bother with courts and trials? > >I still think assassination politics is self-terminating. It would probably be more accurate to say that it is "self-limiting." There's a difference, you know. There may never be a "last" AP death. However, AP deaths may (and probably will) eventually become comparatively rare, precisely because they so straightforwardly obtained if there is a justification for them. That will cause the behavior of people to change, to avoid doing anything which draws the ire of somebody else. Think back to integral calculus, where the area under an infinitely long curve may be finite. If we think of X as being time, and the rate of deaths as the height of the curve above Y=0, the total number of deaths is reflected in the area. Some death rate schedules will integrate to a finite, limited number of deaths. Even if reality doesn't quite approach this optimum situation, it MAY approach a much better reality where the eventual rate of deaths is far lower than the status quo. However, the system will only self-limit to the extent that overt agression among people will be eliminated. If nobody agresses against you, you will have no reason to agress against anyone else. Therefore, the system cannot end in a dictatorship. >> Maybe *that* will help the whales and trees, because of the effect on demand. > >Don't you mean supply? Stores and physical companies are easier to target >than consumers. But the only remaining environmentalists or for that >matter any other people with strong views will be net-based pseudonyms. >Usenet flamewars, editorials and talk shows just don't seem dying for, imho. It is true that there may be a strong deterrent against "people with strong views." However, as I pointed out to the head of a 'Net freedom organization (who was worried about his future!), the only reason our society NEEDS figurehead people such as him is to change unpopular policies that are forced on the rest of us. Once AP begins operating, you don't have to stick your neck out to deter agression against you, and you don't need heads of organizations such as him, or for that matter organizations either. Quite simply, why do you need the head of the ACLU, or for that matter the ACLU as an organization, if you can target anybody who violates the rights that the ACLU currently protects? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Netscape Mail Security and PGP Plugins
by Greg Kucharo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Actually there is a web page covering quite a bit www.c2.org/~raph/pgpmime.html This is Raph's page and is still under construction. The whole gist of my last mail was to level more discussion at using Netscape and browsers in general as a low common denominator way of getting more crypto out there.

1 0

Re: [Slightly less Off-topic] Re: Insults (was: PBS show)
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:18 PM 6/15/96 -0000, nelson(a)crynwr.com wrote: > But the "crypto-" prefix has an additional > meaning that may make its use somewhat problematic. A "crypto-" > something can be a "fake-" or "hidden-" something. So if it actually > became popular to be a geek, you'd have cool people becoming > crypto-geeks. Incorrect: Crypto-something means a hidden something, not fake something: Most popular usage is "cryptofascist" since fascism is so terribly politically incorrect these days, and many fascists are politically correct, so they do not call themselves fascist. Another common usage is crypto-totalitarian. A crypto-anarchist could mean either someone who seeks to destroy the state by higher mathematics, or someone who conceals his real aim of destroying the state. Because cryptography is in many ways subtle attack on the state, with consequences far more radical than is at first apparent, those who seek to destroy the state by this means often are not obvious anarchists -- crypto-anarchists are often crypto-anarchists. The intended meaning is usually obvious from context: I have never seen the word crypto-anarchist used in the sense of a secret anarchist. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

Re: WEB: Child molester database
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 14 Jun 96 at 22:40, Damaged Justice wrote: > Along with the arms trafficker page, now we have a "child molester > database": > > http://www.greatworld.com/public > > Deadbeat Dads, Drug Dealers and more, coming soon according to blurb. I took a look at the "Crooked Cops" page. There was an anonymous note about this one copy from AL(abama?) who smoked grass while the contributer had sex with his daughter in the next room. Amusing, sort of. Rob.

1 0

Re: Attorney General wants to "expand crypto laws"
by Scott Staedeli 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Nando Time has a short story at: http://www2.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/info/061596/info2_10501.html I have to give Janet some credit for persistance, after all the events of the last week, she's still pushing the four horsemen. --- ==================================================== Let's see, Dole, Clinton... Do I get another choice? ====================================================

1 0