December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: [Off-Topic] "Curfews"
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 May 96 at 19:08, Timothy C. May wrote: > This is off-topic for the list, but I want to share it anyway. It touches > on issues of increasing police surveillance, and also touches on the issue Not really too off topic at all, considering the surveillance state and GAK relate very much to what we're doing here. An aside: at the University I used to attend, there were field trips to this small museum on the campus by elementary school children, who apparently regarded the motion detectors for the automatic doors as being cameras which they'd happily wave hello to. Images of Huxley's Brave New World intermingled with Warhol's 15-minutes-of-fame stewed up with Orwell here.... > of "age credentials" (in the sense that how else is a cop who stops a young > person for "curfew violation" to determine if a violation has occurred when > most 14- and 15-year-olds carry no driver's licenses?) Since when are we now to carry ID everywhere. And of course the local police will (as usual) be selective about who they stop to ask about directions. Also note that a reasonable exception will be for kids to go to work or school-related activities (institutional), but nothing non-institutional such as a party at a friend's house (drugs or no drugs), band practice, etc. etc. > The "curfew" meme is spreading quickly, with Clinton calling for a federal > curfew, at least in cities, and Dole trying to outdo him with even more > draconian curfew laws. Many communities already have them, including San > Jose, New Orleans, and other large cities. And my own community, Santa Cruz > County, ironically begins a curfew program on Saturday, tomorrow. Some communities here in Long Island have them. Others have fought them, and I think a couple of attempts were struck down by courts. Also a blurb in the local papers about police not wanting the curfew here, believing it to be a waste of their time or unnecessary... (I'll have to dig the article up; I only rememebr it wasn't reassuring.) [..] > (Some purists claim that children are exempted from normal constitutional > protections, such as the right of free association, the right to be free > from unwarranted searches and seizures, the right of free speech, etc. > Especially this comes up in debates about rights in public schools (speech, > locker searches, movements are controlled, etc.). But I think a public A problem indeed. Children grow up used to the surveillance society and don't mind it when they become adults. Imagine a whole generation coming of age being told they are "criminals". Things will be very "interesting" (in the Chinese fortune cookie sense) during the next 10-20 years... > As I said, should such curfews become widespread, children will of course > need forms of age identification, and this opens yet another door for > universal I.D. cards. And for "travel papers." ...or they'll stay at home and net surf. Beware the Four (or six?) Horsemen... Rob. --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

Re: opinions on book "The Truth Machine"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:53 AM 6/1/96, Adam Back wrote: >Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> wrote: >> At 7:06 AM 5/31/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >> >It sounds like a "make.money.fast.by.promoting.this.book" scam to me. > >If you mean myself, this had not occured to me and I assure you I have >no connections with the author, and no interest in promoting sales of >his book. No, Adam, I certainly was not implying you are profiting from this in any way. Maybe the "make.money.fast" description was a poor one...what I meant to imply is that the book is being advertised widely (I've seen half a dozen announcements of it), and it reminds me of either the Craig Shergold or make.money.fast posts, not sure which. >The writing style wasn't great, and I'd agree there were plenty of >flaws, but what I was interested in was cypherpunks opinions on the >technology, rather than the quality of the book, or making money for The main technology, "the truth machine," is so bogus as to be boring. >The interesting technologies touched on were: > >- cheap video used by everyone to record their own lives A better treatment of this is in David Brin's "Earth." >That government might have a go at mandating a "voluntary" video >survielance set up doesn't seem that unrealistic in the current >political climate. Having just read your post on curfews my response >was what the fuck, are you serious? It totally amazes me that public >opinion has got to the stage that something like this would be >accepted. Sounds like a military dictatorship. Children first, >adults next? The level of peoples paranoia about reducing crime at >any cost has been severely underestimated. Surely that's way out of >line constitutionally? We agree. I once jokingly wrote a post about "position escrow," and I now fear it is not so far off. ("The Positional Update Tracking Zoner (PUTZ) meets law enforcement's legitimate needs, with proper court authority, to track the movements of citizen-units.") However, what you say below about being required to explain your movements to cops who stop you on the highway and then present "papers" to them within one week is truly horrifying, far beyond anything we yet have here in these beknighted states: >For instance I have been stopped by the police four times late at >night driving home, as I live some distance from the university. The >questions are basically what is your business (ie what are you doing >so late at night), and then they get you to take in your papers to the >police station within 1 week which is an inconvenience. Also the ... !!! Glad I don't live in Britain. --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."

2 1

Arms Trafficker Page Made CNN!
by Vincent Cate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Offshore Information Services Arms Trafficker page made CNN Computer Connection just moments ago. :-) The page: http://online.offshore.com.ai/arms-trafficker/ is now famous. :-) -- Vince

1 0

Re: Statistical analysis of anonymous databases
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 0:56 6/1/96, Alan Horowitz wrote: >> In medical research, third party audit, i.e., the Department of Health and >> Human Services, is often required. A simple pseudonym picked by the patient >> won't do. > > It's not clear to me that the second sentence follows from the first. HSS needs to verify that the researcher didn't just make up the data. The Department therefore has to be able to audit the results of the study by contacting a small subset of the participants directly. How can the Department contact the participants if they are known only under their nyms? No, pseudonymous remailers are not a valid answer. All this has to be done without requiring any type of email/Internet access. US Mail only. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

Re: Fairness, Justice, and Cypherpunks (fwd)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:49 PM 6/1/96, Jim Choate wrote: >Businesses (and government) have no rights under the Constitution and should >enjoy no rights under the Constitution. Rights are the sole purvue of real live >human beings (ie individuals) and not groups or paper individuals (stupidest >idea I have ever seen in the legal field). It is not reasonable to support This may come as a surprise to newspapers, which are corporations for the most part, and other publishing companies. Here we thought the First Amendment covered them. Apparently not. The government of the U.S. may freely tell "Time" magazine what to right, may tell "Wired" what official slant to put on a story, and what images "Playboy" may not publish. Oh, and the various religious institutions are clearly not covered, either, as they are groups. While _individuals_ are free to worship as they please, they'd better not form a church or synagogue, lest the government give them instructions on what to do. And the Fourth Amendment and other amendments don't cover small businesses, large corporations, etc., so the cops are perfectly free to knock the doors down, enter whenever they wish, force companies to quarter troops, seize property without due process,.... Is this what you're saying is the case, or is this what you want to be the case? --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."

1 0

[Off-Topic] "Curfews"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cypherpunks, This is off-topic for the list, but I want to share it anyway. It touches on issues of increasing police surveillance, and also touches on the issue of "age credentials" (in the sense that how else is a cop who stops a young person for "curfew violation" to determine if a violation has occurred when most 14- and 15-year-olds carry no driver's licenses?) The "curfew" meme is spreading quickly, with Clinton calling for a federal curfew, at least in cities, and Dole trying to outdo him with even more draconian curfew laws. Many communities already have them, including San Jose, New Orleans, and other large cities. And my own community, Santa Cruz County, ironically begins a curfew program on Saturday, tomorrow. I wrote this item for our local newsgroup, scruz.general, announcing that "my household" will not abide by this law. I didn't come out and say "my kids" would not abide by it, inasmuch as I have no kids. So I elliptically referred to "parents and guardians"...after all, my sister visits with her husband and son, and in theory I could be the guardian of this kid. And friends bring their kids. My point is to send a "warning" to the Sheriff's office that at least some households think this crackdown on the movements of children is unacceptable. Children have the right to travel, especially as the parents permit it, without being stopped, questioned, forced to state their destinations, and, if the answers don't satisfy the cop, taken into detention at some children's equivalent of a "drunk tank." (Some purists claim that children are exempted from normal constitutional protections, such as the right of free association, the right to be free from unwarranted searches and seizures, the right of free speech, etc. Especially this comes up in debates about rights in public schools (speech, locker searches, movements are controlled, etc.). But I think a public school environment is a dramatically different situation, whatever one thinks of these claims about rights, from a kid walking on a public street. To claim that such a child may be stopped, interrogated, taken to a detention center, without a crime having been committed, is a clear violation of his or her rights.) As I said, should such curfews become widespread, children will of course need forms of age identification, and this opens yet another door for universal I.D. cards. And for "travel papers." Maybe it would be easier to just put a tattoo on their arms--especially as the younger generation is so into tattoos these days. "Pappieren, bitte. Macht schnell!" Here's what I sent in to scruz.general tonight: So Santa Cruz begins its own fascist crackdown on the free movements of persons. The "curfew" begins Saturday night. Allegedly these persons are children, but it is up to parents and guardians to control the movements of their children or charges in public places, NOT the function of the police to detain these children or charges. (Initially a "warning," but the child's name is recorded in police data bases....if the child is detained a second time, he or she may face detention time, community service, fines on the parents or guardians, and so forth.) ANNOUNCEMENT: I am responsible for the children in my household or in my custody or guardianship. Not the cops. Not the Sheriff. Not the CAMP helicopters. Not the narcs. Not the vice squad. Not anyone but me. I am instructing those in my household or who visit to IGNORE all interrogations by cops. I am telling them not to let the cops search their bags, not to let the cops ask where they are going, not to let the cops demand that they give a reason for being out. If they pick up people from my household, I expect the children to remain silent and to just fill up the god-damned jail cells until I eventually raise a ruckus and (maybe) pick them up. If some kids are out and about and making mischief, the cops should concentrate on catching _those_ children! Don't immobilize all kids for the sake of supposedly cutting down on the activities of the perps. As with so many do-gooder laws, the effect will largely be felt on the "good" kids and will be ignored or evaded by the "bad" kids. As to the claims that children have no valid reason to be out after 9, or 11, or whatever, this is not for anyone but the parents and guardians to decide. The god-damned cops are not the ones to decide what a valid reason for being out is. (I have heard that "religious worship," a la "Midnight Mass," is one of the valid reasons for a child to be out after curfew. Fine, religion is then the stated reason those in my household are out! I will tell them to tell any nosy cops or Sheriff's Deputies that they are worshippers of Baal, and Baal requires them to be out to appreciate the darkness. If the cops claim this is "not a valid religion," I will recite to them the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, where it says: "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.") I moved to the rural part of Santa Cruz, Corralitos, to escape this fascist and socialist nonsense, and now I find it primarily the Sheriff-dominated parts of this county which will now claim to tell parents and guardians they no longer control their children. Fuck this. --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."

2 1

Interesting forum on CSPAN
by Mike Fletcher 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Was channel surfing last night while MST3K was in a commercial and wound up watching a panel on CSPAN from the World Economic Forum on "Technology & Security". The pannelists were Nicholas Negroponte from MIT's Media Lab, John Barlow from the EFF, a Mike Nelson from the White House (no relation to MST3K's :), and two other people whom I can't for the life of me remember their names (one was from a security consulting firm, and the other was a lawyer from something like the "Bristol Group"). It was 3am, so sue me. :) I missed the first few minutes, but there was a bunch of administration encryption policy bashing from all sides. Nelson kept saying that the administration wanted to support "good strong encryption" and they wanted to be able to say (paraphrasing) "We think this is good. Use this." (Trust us, we're from a TLA. :) He also kept saying that (again, paraphrasing) "most encryption out there is no good". Which begs the question then why are they wanting to ban its use and export. Negroponte kept bringing up the point that their policy was based on the (flawed, as we all believe) assumption that no one outside the US could create good crypto. Other topics that were touched on were intellectual property rights and e$. It was interesting that the lawyer person agreed to a good extent with a lot of the remarks Barlow made. Overall it was pretty interesting (and not just to watch the White House guy squirm as his premises were invalidated out from under him :). CSPAN usually replays stuff like this at odd times during the weekend so you might want to keep your eyes peeled. --- Fletch __`'/| fletch(a)ain.bls.com "Lisa, in this house we obey the \ o.O' ______ 404 713-0414(w) Laws of Thermodynamics!" H. Simpson =(___)= -| Ack. | 404 315-7264(h) PGP Print: 8D8736A8FC59B2E6 8E675B341E378E43 U ------

1 0

Re: NRC Cryptography Report: The Text of the Recommendations
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:04 PM 5/30/96 -0700, Hal wrote: >This is then followed with a couple of pages of justification for why >this relaxation of the export policies should be allowed. Much is made >of the fact that people will be more likely to use 56 bit encryption than >the 40 bit which is currently allowed. (This is an example of the >perspective issue I mentioned above.) However, nowhere is it stated why >more than 56 bits is not OK, and why it is necessary to forbid repeated >use to increase confidentiality. There is not one word of discussion of >this proviso. A very curious omission! It seems to me that if they're trying to explain any sort of limits on encryption, they should focus carefully on WHY those limits should exist, and why, exactly, those limits should be selected at any particular level. >Third, although in broad terms the report is supportive of the use of >cryptography, the specific recommendations do very little to liberalize >current policies. Free domestic access to cryptography is already the >law. Raising the export size limit from 40 to 56 bits is a step >forward, but a small one. Beyond 56 bits they recommend the >requirement of escrowed encryption. Given current moves to standardize >on triple DES, this is a retrenching action. They recommend >criminalizing the use of cryptography in committing crimes, admitting >that this may be used in some cases (as comparable mail fraud statues >have been) to bring prosecutions against people who cannot be proven to >have committed any other crime. "[T]he committee understands that it >is largely the integrity of the judicial and criminal justice process >that will be the ultimate check on preventing its use for such >purposes." I can think of a much better "ultimate check on preventing its use for such purposes." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

(Fwd) Developers Directory
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I got the following 'junk' email so I bit. They asked for updated descriptions of software that I've thrown on the net, along with shareware/freeware/GPL/comm. ratings, etc. Also violence ratings... I set all my source codes to "Gruesome" <insert cheesy emoticon here> Interesting to see what proggies of mine they listed and what they didn't. --Mutant Rob ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Sat, 1 Jun 1996 15:21:29 -0600 From: Author Database Maintenance <authors(a)exodus.pht.com> Subject: Developers Directory Dear Author, We're building a public database called the "Developer's Directory" which contains information about authors of shareware/freeware programs. We'd like to include you and some information about your programs. We'd sure appreciate it if you'd visit our website and help us fill in some info. http://pacific.pht.com/ [ my info deleted ;] Since this system is still in the testing phase, we'd like to hear your comments and suggestions. Please send them to: authors(a)pht.com Thank you! Koji Ashida --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

1 0

Re: NRC Cryptography Report: The Text of the Recommendations
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:55 AM 6/1/96 -0700, watson(a)tds.com wrote: >Anybody know who the NRC is and whether they have any influence with anyone? They have influence in that their reports have a fair amount of credibility with the extra boost of NAS's "scientific authority." If one wanted to distinguish what they do with what the OTA did for instance, one could say that while the OTA generally had a very smart/competent staff (and had a turbulent, poorly managed history and political troubles) the NRC has the strength in that it is non-governmental and has the shroud of "scientific neutrality" about it it could hope to pull from its parent organization, the NAS. The NAS and NRC have interesting histories, the NAS was an honorary society that had some fundings for it snuck into an appropriations bill back in 1863, but generally it was not supported by the government aside from specific "contract" studies which the Congress might ask for. The NRC (known as the NDRC) was created as an advisory council under NAS to help the government with munitions research and development during WWI. Since, they conduct hoc scientific/policy studies to investigate a topic on Congress's behalf. Their "Realizing the Information Future" that came out a couple of years ago was highly regarded. For history on these topics I recommend: Hunter Dupree, Sciene in the Federal Government: A History to 1940, Harper & Row, 1974. Bruce L. R. Smith, American Science Policy Since World War II, Brookings Institution, 1990. >From their WEB page: National Research Council NRC Logo The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of further knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the National Research Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The National Research Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is the chairman of the National Research Council. _______________________ Regards, Real generosity toward the future lies in giving all to the present. - Albert Camus Joseph Reagle http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0