December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: How I Would Ban Strong Crypto in the U.S.
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The emerging consensus is, in fact, nonexistant. Gorelick trotted out the same fiction when she, Leahy, Sen. Kyl, and White (deputy defense secretary) testified before the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations this morning. (Note that Leahy is only occasionally a friend of the Net. His original crypto bill had troubling additional criminal penalties; he shepharded Digital Telephony through Congress; he is a co-sponsor of the vile copyright bill pending right now. In sum, he'd hurt the Net more than help it. This becomes a problem when netizens hold him up as an champion of our freedoms -- and then when DT II comes along his fellow senators think it's okay to vote for it 'cuz Mr. Net, Leahy, is a cosponsor.) My rebuttal to Gorelick's fantasy is: well, what about Japan, where the country's constitution forbids wiretapping? -Declan Michael writes: >On Sun, 14 Jul 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > >> So, who is in this "emerging consensus"? >> >Foreign governments? >(Process of elimination, not inside info...) > > > >A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) >Associate Professor of Law | >U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu >P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin >Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's hot here. And humid.

1 0

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:47 PM 7/15/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote: >>Despite trying to hide behind the smokescreen of calling the >>government's GAK position "voluntary," we all know that they are trying to >>misuse their influence to gently force us to use GAK, if by no other means >>that forcing the taxpayer to pay for the system as they have done already. > >I agree, though I would not have phrased it in such an offensive way. Please explain why you think my comment above is phrased "in such an offensive way." Hint: If I'd really wanted it to be "offensive," I could have easily done that. >This isn't some conspiracy of evil but people with a legitimate policy >disagreement. I notice your insertion of the term "legitimate." As opposed to what? Do you mean that you acknowledge that there is such a thing as an ILLEGITIMATE policy disagreement? How can we tell the difference? And there goes that word, "policy," again! Containing with it, the assumption that governments (despite ostensible freedom of speech) have some sort of authority to regulate encryption. >>The opponents of GAK, on the other hand, are not denying to anyone the >right >>to implement a truly voluntary "key-escrow" system, or more likely many >>privately operating ones. > >I disagree again. It is evident from the effort to shoot down Clipper I, >which WAS voluntary, that this is another case of your version of >"voluntary". If an offeror, even the government, offers something voluntary >and you don't like it, you attempt to suppress it. It's kinda like "freedom >of speech only for those who agree with me". Huh? Developed in secret (secrecy, not merely for the technical details, but also for the broad overall concept: the former might have been justifiable to some people, the latter was not!), using stolen tax dollars, and presented as a fait accompli to the public. Oh, one more thing: Apparently designed to NOT be able to talk to non-escrowed encryption systems, in an obvious attempt to freeze out competition. The government was trying to misuse its influence here. Obviously some new strange usage of the word "voluntary" that I wasn't previously aware of. >> However, such systems will be a service for the >>customer, not the government, and the key will almost certainly not be >>provided to the government on request, and in fact the key will likely be >>stored in an encrypted form that the government won't be able to use. > >To the contrary, business records are always available on legitimate >subpoena by the government, There you go again with that word, "legitimate." Give me an example of an "_illegitimate subpoena_," will you? One that someone is not obligated to fulfill. What?!? You can't? Then why did you use the term in what is obviously (to you) a redundant fashion? > and this would include escrowed keys. YOU don't >have to like it, but it's the law. Not currently it isn't. Laws concerning "escrowed keys" haven't been written, and in any case since they don't have to be stored in the same legal jurisdiction, cooperation with a given set of authorities is not only not guaranteed, but isn't wise. Besides, the only thing I see in the US Constitution which compels a person's participation in and cooperation with a trial is a right of defendants to have witnesses appear in their _defense._ I see no corresponding right on the part of the prosecution to compel ITS witnesses to appear. And you ignored the part about the ENCRYPTED stored keys. If they're encrypted, then even if they're presented to the police, they won't be able to use them, law or no law. Given a choice, I think most people would prefer to use an "escrow agent" (if they chose to use one at all; which I doubt) that is either guaranteed to be uncooperative to the government, or one which CAN'T be cooperative, because the material it has is not in a form useful to the cops. As long as key-escrow is TRULY "voluntary," in the broadest and most accurate sense of the word, market forces will migrate to a practice which is best for individual customers as individuals. >>Quite simply, we do not require your "assent." You should be trying to get >>OURS. > >"Silence does not constitute assent" to your personal attacks, your policy >assertions, and what I think to be your misrepresentations of fact. I was >not speaking of assent to GAK in that sentence. > >I think your attempt to pseudospeciate me and create an "us and him" >situation in this group is bound to fail with those who have paid attention >to what I think and say, particularly my most recent thinking. On many >matters we are agreed at bottom. However, I place high value on policy There you go again with the word, "policy." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: My impending death
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:22 PM 7/14/96 EDT, you wrote: >> Since Vulis decided to drag in a disagreement from elsewhere, I have a brief >> invitation. > >The cripple is lying again, as usual. Twice he reposted to cypherpunks >his Usenet lies with no cryptographic relevance just to slime me. Since >not even Perry told the demented cripple to quit, I'll respond in kind. > I don't want to seem overly squemish, but wouldn't you agree, that stuff that get's so "personal" as this discussion doesn't really belong here? (Personally I even think, that such primitive mudslinging doesn't belong anywhere) Calm down, relax, have a cigar and be a nice boy. ----------< fate favors the prepared mind >---------- Remo Pini Fon 1: +41 1 350 28 82 mailto:rp@rpini.com Fon 2: +41 1 465 31 90 http://www.rpini.com/remopini/ Fax: +41 1 350 28 84 --------< words are what reality is made of >--------

1 0

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.27 - No New News on Crypto: Gore Restates
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:13 15/07/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote: >actions in the Netherlands, the UK, and in the European >Parliament suggest that an independent European escrow initiative might >happen within a year. When it does it will be a trivial matter to harmonize >it with some US offering. The mills in various countries are grinding too >coincidentally for my taste. I don't doubt that the Europeans are quite likely to toe the American line -- they not seldom do in international negotiations, plus they share the NATO mentality. However, that does not constitute international agreement. GAK basically requires companies and individuals to trust their government, and here in India people across the political and economic spectrum would laugh in your face at the suggestion. Also secrecy from the government is crucial to most businesspersons, and I cannot imagine anyone in a country with a repressive, inept or corrupt government agreeing to this (And further, trusting the far away US government, which might misuse its powers to help its own industry in international bids). You might say that repressive governments are not likely to ask their citizens before agreeing internationally to GAK, but then, citizens are not likely to ask their government either before using good crypto. The matter will land up before the courts, and that will keep the situation confused for a while. With digital commerce seriously hindered by lack of security, I doubt the business community will stay patient, and want to opt for a hassle-free, tried and tested, secure and transparent system such as pgp. Governments cannot for long ignore the wishes of big business. > >Given the glacial pace with which standard integrated crypto has appeared >on the Internet, with Navigator only going to offer the final >link--encrypted e-mail--later this year, the above timing isn't necessarily >one which will be left behind by independent Internet developments. And >given the glacial pace of PGP movement toward integrated internet standard >products, it hasn't a hope of beating the above timing to the punch. While I share your view on the need for urgency in integrating PGP into Internet standard products (and wish the programmers on these projects God-speed!) I don't think end of this year is too late for them to come out. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/

2 1

C'punks T-shirt idea?
by Simon Spero 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Currently reading John Keane's biography of Tom Paine,] Picture of Paine with superimposed text Atlanticus [crossed out] Forrester [crossed out] Common Sense [crossed out] Common.Sense(a)alpha.c2.org --- Cause maybe (maybe) | In my mind I'm going to Carolina you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th. And after all | Email address remains unchanged You're my firewall - | ........First in Usenet.........

1 0

Re: Metered Phone
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:45 AM 7/15/96 -0700, you wrote: >At 01:19 PM 7/7/96 +0800, you wrote: >>Does anyone have any ideas about this metered phone? >>I am from Philippines and heard some news that it will be >>existing in 1997. Quite a big problem! Every dial will be counted, >>every seconds will be measured... > >That sounds like you're getting newer telephone technology. >In the US, most areas with newer telephone switches offer you >the choice of flat rate service (you pay a constant price per month >... >Bill Stewart Well, in Switzerland all telephon-switches (including the ones the company I work with manufactures) record: 1. start of call 2. destination of call 3. source of call 4. end of call After all, you can get a detailed list of all your calls by the end of the month (the phonenumbers of the destination are somewhat obscured -> only the first 4 digits). So, hellcome to the new age of transparent customers! As soon as you get digital switches (POTS or ISDN) your phonelife is measured, stored and statistically evaluated. ----------< fate favors the prepared mind >---------- Remo Pini Fon 1: +41 1 350 28 82 mailto:rp@rpini.com Fon 2: +41 1 465 31 90 http://www.rpini.com/remopini/ Fax: +41 1 350 28 84 --------< words are what reality is made of >--------

2 1

Re: Sternlight on C'punks
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Dave: You are a helluva fine debater but you are also an unbelievably irritating, sanctimonious son-of-a-bitch. A CoWaRD On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote: > At 10:54 AM -0700 7/16/96, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > > >a suggestion: get a pseudonym! > > In my opinion (it's not "the truth") using a pseudonym except in force > majeure circumstances such as a rape counseling group is cowardly. I think > people should stand behind what they say, and the notion of Detweiler's > having arguments with himself pseudonymously would be hilarious if it were > not pathetic. > > In any case it wouldn't work for me since I suspect my literary style is > sufficiently distinctive (at least for this sort of group) that I'd be > spotted in a short time and then be the victim of a bunch of nasty "what > have you got to hide" posts. > > And I'm not going to twist myself into a pretzel, stylistically speaking, > just so some thug's nastiness can be avoided. I trust the good sense of > wiser readers, and as Harry Truman said... > > David > > >

1 0

Making encoding out of an authentication cipher
by EVERHART＠Arisia.GCE.Com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Had an interesting thought, maybe worth passing on for commentary. (...since "authentication" ciphers are considered "harmless" by those interested in spying on your info...) Suppose you have a secure hash function H(msg) that delivers a random long period set of hash bits for msg, which is computationally infeasible to invert and such that the value of H(msg) depends very sensitively on all bits of msg. These things are used for authentication and tend to be all over the world. Now suppose I have a key and apply the following transform, where "+" will mean binary exclusive OR. Cipher: H(key) + M(1) = C(1) H(key+M(1)) + M(2) = C(2) H(key+M(2)) + M(3) = C(3) and so on where M(n) is the message and C is the enciphered message. Decipher: H(key) + C(1) = M(1) H(key+M(1)) + C(2) = M(2) H(key+M(2)) + C(3) = M(3) and so on. If the hash function is cryptographically strong, is this or is this not a strong cipher? Are there fast hash functions around? Note that in doing disk encryption, one has also the disk block number available, and even the offset in block, to be stuffed into the hash function if one wants. In a serial message one has offset in message also. The only piece of nontrivial software needed to implement it is the hash function itself, which has been claimed to be useful only for authentication. If this scheme is at all strong, the distinction is shown to be fairly useless. I thought of this a couple days ago...thought I might ask if anyone knows any of the answers. I do not, and am not knowledgeable in this area, save VERY casually.

1 0

Re: Sternlight on C'punks
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hy guys, I have no idea, who this david is, but it's kind of funny: someone says: when this guy shows up, you get a mail flodd then someone replies to that... And suddenly you notice, that the first guy was right, but I think he had to be, after all, he was the first wave. (And I'm another one). So, who is this david? I don't care, and as long as he posts stuff the way he/she/it did until now, I won't. (Wouldn't you agree, that we have a lot worse to worry about? - i.e. tonights fight, "Rottwiler" vs. "Cripple") ----------< fate favors the prepared mind >---------- Remo Pini Fon 1: +41 1 350 28 82 mailto:rp@rpini.com Fon 2: +41 1 465 31 90 http://www.rpini.com/remopini/ Fax: +41 1 350 28 84 --------< words are what reality is made of >--------

1 0

[flaming] Why <jf_avon@citenet.net> was blocked.
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 16 Jul 96 at 19:43, The Deviant wrote: > Umm.. when telling other ppl that they do not know how to read, it > might be usefull to use sentances with a subject AND a predicate. I > know that this is something they taught you _way_ back in second > grade, but you should still remember it. Sorry to say, but I did not get english classes up until grade 4 and since I had no occasions to practice it before age 18, I don't remember anything of my english classes. A major brain trauma probably helped too. Although I write french much better than most of the university educated francophone population here, I don't even remember any french grammar. As for the word 'predicate', would you please deign tell me what it means? I don't have an english dictionnary handy. As for my true question regarding realdeal.exe /per used on top of SecureDrive 1.4a, do you have any comments? JFA The brave dies only once, the coward (who uses anon remailer for flaming) dies a thousand death. -old adapted arab proverb. - -- DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies R&D consultants: physicists technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2i Comment: PGP Public key: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon iQEVAgUBMeuTHciycyXFit0NAQHY5AgAiki+95PrT1VO6FEJrCG1tYjvg5/I6OoL 9cFIvVIsKJiN7AjVE029Y/Sc5xEsTQSCg3yAxfEWWRy054IZYdO098znKDYoeh/9 3Fs+xKjLN1L7m3XiQH8AAL0GMWZz31ft95eKcnb7wermwzHXAhVbW3BoSwYWBYD2 o584rm7ahrriWA4Z+nnPB60w/OY5SYZl95aeGQbudJG0fRklvBjh1j5GVRudSinb I2InlbrH5QbVpKlaJ1FpJt//X39CJnOCMx4iK8QwjMLekJAtyHZGZxafuUz6T2+r RpL3slRCygt6vCJeSJAwlE+LVaM8I1rRUIk3GCdIIxX5FTLyMpr2pw== =bw9v -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0