December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Tell it like it is, Perry
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Addressed to: Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> Perry Metzger <perry(a)piermont.com> now, why would anyone want to send Perry a PerryGram? --Perry's prose is far too elegant to warrant criticism, particularly the closing remark! = Your attitude seems to be "you can't prove anything so you must assume = that they are innocent." My attitude is "I can't prove anything so = they can't go to jail, but that doesn't mean I have to believe that = they are innocent -- in fact, I'm an idiot if I believe that." = = > I think that given Perry's ad-hominem attacks and the fact that this = > has nothing to do with cryptography that its about time someone sent = > Perry a Perry-gram. = = Cypherpunks no longer is a cryptography mailing list. Its a sewer. = = Perry = -- When you can't say 'fuck,' you can't say 'FUCK THE CDA!' --Lenny Bruce rephrased

1 0

DCSB Cocktails Over Back Bay
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: 6 Jun 96 10:13:48 EDT From: "Julie Rackliffe" <RACKLIFFE(a)tcm.org> Subject: DCSB Cocktails Over Back Bay To: "dcsb" <dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu> Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: "Julie Rackliffe" <RACKLIFFE(a)tcm.org> Greetings! As those who attended yesterday's lunch already know, We Have A Date! I am simply delighted to announce that Open Software Foundation has generously agreed to sponsor our first ever cocktail party for the Digital Commerce Society of Boston. I promises to be a memorable evening and I hope that you will plan to come, and please feel free to introduce a friend to this unique group. Our intention is that this event should be used as a networking opportunity in addition to getting some more people interested in DCSB (and, of course, expanding our mailing list!) So, here's the specifics: When: Thursday, June 20, 1996 5-8 pm Where: The Harvard Club, One Federal Street, 38th floor in The Lounge (sunset over the Back Bay will be featured!) Hot and Cold Hors D'oeuvres ala The Harvard Club and cool libations compliments of OSF and DCSB. What's the Catch?- No Catch! Just RSVP to me before June 17 Do Come! Julie Rackliffe The Computer Museum Annual Fund/Membership Manager 300 Congress St, Boston 02210 rackliffe(a)tcm.org 617.426.2800 X432 ******************************************************************************** The Walk-Through Computer 2000 is open! This is a "must see"! Museum Membership:SR/STU $25...IND $35...FAM $50...NON-PROFIT $250...LIB $500 Web Site: http://www.tcm.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To unsubscribe from this list, send a letter to: Majordomo(a)ai.mit.edu In the body of the message, write: unsubscribe dcsb Or, to subscribe, write: subscribe dcsb If you have questions, write to me at Owner-DCSB(a)ai.mit.edu --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "If they could 'just pass a few more laws', we would all be criminals." --Vinnie Moscaritolo The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

ALERT: Court decision expected soon in free speech case; spreadthe word! (fwd)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Wed, 5 Jun 1996 11:44:10 -0400 From: shabbir(a)vtw.org (Shabbir J. Safdar) To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv(a)lists.psi.com> Subject: ALERT: Court decision expected soon in free speech case; spread the word! - ------ [Dear Friend-of-VTW, During our "Turn the Web Black campaign", you wrote us regarding that protest. Because of the success of that campaign, we are asking you to participate again in another net-campaign to draw attention to the upcoming decision in the lawsuit to challenge the net censorship legislation. This information is not widely available yet, and I would appreciate it if you did not redistribute this. Because you helped us out during the highly successful "Turn the Web Black" campaign, we are giving you advanced notice of this effort before we tell anyone else. -Shabbir J. Safdar, Voters Telecommunication Watch (www.vtw.org) ======================================================================== __ _________ __ __ ____ ____ _____ \ \ / /_ _\ \ / / / / / ___| _ \_ _| Raise the roof \ \ / / | | \ \ /\ / / / / | | | | | || | for the Court's \ V / | | \ V V / / / | |___| |_| || | decision on net \_/ |_| \_/\_/ /_/ \____|____/ |_| free speech! Voters Telecommunications Watch / Center for Democracy and Technology JOIN TENS OF THOUSANDS OF NET USERS IN SPREADING THE WORD ABOUT THE FIRST RESULT OF THE FREE SPEECH LAWSUIT June 5, 1996 Redistribute (intact, please) only until June 28, 1996 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table of contents News - A decision in the court case is near How to participate How will this campaign work? Press information on this event Background: what is the CDA? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NEWS - A DECISION IN THE COURT CASE IS NEAR The fate of the Internet and the future of the First Amendment in the information age hang in the balance. As early as this week, three federal judges in Philadelphia are poised to issue a ruling in the law suit challenging the Communications Decency Act (CDA), which restricts constitutionally protected speech on the Internet. Will the court rule that the CDA is unconstitutional? That the Internet is a unique communications technology that deserves the same First Amendment protections enjoyed by the print media? Or will the court side with Senator Exon, conservative "pro-family" groups, and the Justice Department who have argued that the government is the best judge of what material is appropriate online. Regardless of the outcome, the decision will have a profound impact on the future of the Internet as a medium for free expression, education, and commerce. JOIN TENS OF THOUSANDS OF YOUR FELLOW NETIZENS IN ANNOUNCING THE DECISION When the Communications Decency Act was signed into law by President Clinton on February 8, 1996, the World Wide Web went black in protest. When the decision in the historic legal challenge to the CDA is announced, join tens of thousands of your fellow netizens in spreading the word on the decision and its impact. This campaign follows in the steps of the Turn the Web Black campaign, which was a tremendous success. Believe it or not, many Internet users had only superficial knowledge about the proposed law and the enormous press coverage and online awareness afterwards mobilized large numbers of people. In addition to the online campaign, there are currently rallies planned for New York, press conferences from the CIEC and the ACLU, and a net campaign to raise awareness to the decision and the effects it will have on free speech. The result of the first CDA decision is an extremely important milestone in the fight for free speech online. Will the net look more like print, or more like Saturday morning television? - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO PARTICIPATE: In anticipation of the decision, you can help keep your fellow Netizens informed on the latest news and participate in a dramatic demonstration when the decision is announced. 1. Add the following link *TODAY* in a prominent location on your web site: <a href="http://www.vtw.org/speech/"> <img src="http://www.vtw.org/images/cda.gif" alt="Free speech court decision" align=top></a><br clear = all><br> A decision is near in the fight to overturn the Communications Decency Act. <br>Watch this image and follow the link for more information. 2. To let us know you have joined us, fill out the form at http://www.vtw.org/speech/ with your URL. A list of participating will be displayed. 3. Attend the online press conference with lead CIEC (Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition) attorney Bruce Ennis on HotWired. More details are available on the WWW page. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ HOW WILL THIS CAMPAIGN WORK? After you have added the link (above) to your page, an animated image signifying that a decision in the case is expected soon will be displayed on your site. By clicking on that image, visitors to your page can jump to a site containing the latest news and information on the case. As soon as a decision is announced, the image will be changed automatically (the update will happen at our server - you will not have to do anything), and Netizens throughout the entire global Internet will immediately be aware of the result (win or lose). By clicking on the updated image, visitors to your page will be able to obtain the text of the decision, analysis, and other relevant information. Until the decision is announced, there will be information about upcoming events and rallies on the VTW Free Speech page, http://www.vtw.org/speech/ - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ PRESS INFORMATION ON THIS EVENT For more information on this event, including press inquiries, please contact: Jonah Seiger, Policy Analyst, Center For Democracy and Technology (CDT) <jseiger(a)cdt.org> +1.202.637.9800 Shabbir Safdar, Online Representative, Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) <shabbir(a)vtw.org> +1.718.596.2851 - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BACKGROUND: WHAT IS THE CDA? The Communications Decency Act was passed as part of the Telecommunications Reform bill in February 1996. The law seeks to protect minors from objectionable or sexually explicit material on the Internet by imposing stiff criminal penalties on the "display" of "indecent" or "patently offensive" material online. Opponents to the new law argue that while well intentioned, the CDA fails to account for the unique nature of the Internet, and that it will have a far-reaching chilling effect on constitutionally protected speech online. On a global, decentralized communications medium like the Internet, the only effective and constitutional means of controlling access to objectionable material is to rely on users and parents, not the government, to decide what material is or is not appropriate. Two lawsuits have been filed to challenge the constitutionality of the CDA in a Philadelphia federal court. The cases have been consolidated and an decision is expected in early June 1996. The cases have been brought, respectively, by The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC), comprised of civil Liberties groups, libraries, Internet Service Providers, Commercial Online Service Providers, Newspaper, Magazine and Book Publishers, and over 45,000 individual internet users, and a coalition of civil liberties groups, authors, and others organized by the ACLU. Detailed information on the legal challenges, as well as information about the CDA, is available at the following web sites: Legal Challenges To The CDA - ---------------------------- * The ACLU - http://www.aclu.org/ * The Citizens Internet Empowerment Coalition (CIEC) - http://www.cdt.org/ciec Background Information On The CDA/Internet Censorship Issues - ------------------------------------------------------------ * The ACLU - http://www.aclu.org * Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) - http://www.cdt.org * Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - http://www.eff.org * Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) - http://www.epic.org * Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) - http://www.vtw.org ======================================================================== ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "If they could 'just pass a few more laws', we would all be criminals." --Vinnie Moscaritolo The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

2 1

Re: Terrorism Hysteria on the Net
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C'punks, At 05:35 PM 6/5/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >Pooh-poohing the potential risk is not a winning proposition. Pointing out >that the government's policies against properly secure systems have created >this house of cards in which we live is. A classic case of government being a disease posing as its own cure. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

NSA/CIA to snoop INSIDE the U.S.???
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What?! What the *@#!! is wrong with the people who supposedly smart people representing us?! Ern -------- From SJ Mercury: NET FEVER ON THE HILL Published: June 6, 1996 BY RORY J. O'CONNOR Mercury News Washington Bureau WASHINGTON -- The White House wants a coordinated task force to fight terrorism on the Internet. Some senators think the CIA should be allowed to work hand in hand with the FBI to fight computer crime on U.S. soil. Meanwhile, the federal courts are deciding a major First Amendment case that might ban certain information from the Net. The nation's capital is in the throes of Internet fever. For the past several months, the condition has become acute, and by the end of the year the Internet itself may look far different as a result: more tightly regulated, more carefully monitored and more expensive. The latest symptom: a suggestion Wednesday for the elimination of laws that prohibit U.S. intelligence agencies -- notably the National >>> Security Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency -- from snooping <<< >>> on home soil. The reason: The potential for computer crime and <<< terrorism is so great, and the Internet so decentralized and international, that police and the FBI must combine forces with spy agencies in order to successfully analyze the threat and investigate criminal activity. ''If we're going to live in this kind of world, we're going to have to link the intelligence world with law enforcement,'' said Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga. For many people in government who work on computer and law-enforcement issues, the course of the disease seems painfully slow. They often describe the Internet as the Wild West that's sorely in need of a good marshal. But for many people who use the Internet, the government's efforts are moving far ahead of any real knowledge of a technology that, two years ago, almost nobody had heard of. ''There are not dead bodies in the street,'' said Donna L. Hoffman, a professor at Vanderbilt University who studies the Internet. ''It just doesn't make sense to rush into legislation.'' [ SNIP ]

1 0

Re: [Off-Topic] "Curfews"
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 6 Jun 96 at 11:19, jim bell wrote: > >>I _do_ believe, however, that the number of people unjustifiably > >>targeted will be rather low. <snip> Retaliation is possible, in > >> that case. Sorry Jim, I did not get that at all in the past. I assumed a context where the inner workings of AP would not be well understood by the population while here, you seems to indicate that everybody would operate under the threat / deterrance of mutual anihilation principle. A argued that an impulsive guy might target somebody unjustifiably while I overlooked that he could think twice before doing so. But by his nature, being a violent or thug at heart, he will understand this "peace based on threat" maybe even better than a pacifist at heart. So, my arguments might not stand. Have any constructive comments? (hey, just play devil's advocate from time to time :) Ciao JFA 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

1 0

Re: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:55 PM 6/5/96 -0700, Bruce Baugh wrote: >The rest of us (in the US) live in a country where the government can now >pretty much declare anyone they like terrorists, and suspend habeus corpus >on the flimsiest of grounds, and use evidence against foreigners that >doesn't have to be presented to the accused, and all sorts of fun stuff. But if that's true... >I don't think that my direst claims _will_ come true. But I don't think I'm >speculating anything that _can't_ happen, and I see much of it as >increasingly likely in the light of the ongoing furor over crypto and >related matters. If that's true (and I don't doubt that it is) doesn't that suggest to you that something serious needs to be done to fix the problem? >From a tagline: "If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you've always got." If you say we shouldn't rock the boat because the bad guys might come, isn't it just possible that the REASON the "bad guys might come" is because we have not, in the past, adequately rocked the boat? My impression is that it is frequently the pacifist-types who get us into war, because they start the process out by tolerating actions by others that turn into more serious actions, etc. You know, the appeasers. Are you an appeaser? All I'm advocating is to set up a system which gives government-types a very stark choice: War or peace. Then let them make that choice. I predict they will choose peace. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: FOR WHOM THE BELL TOLLS
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:18 PM 6/6/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Jim McCoy wrote: .... >> As long as that person is not the President of the United States (at least >> for U.S. citizens.) This was the issue which initiated this thread, the >> implied threat made by our favorite nutcase. > >Are you sure? Can you cite references? From my readings on the 1st >amendments, any general kind of speech is legal, even if it advocates >killing certain officials, including us presidents. *If* instead of >general advocacy a person gave specific orders or concrete requests to >kill the prez, then it would not be speech. Please correct me if I am >wrong. * First, I disagree with Bruce Baugh's earlier comment that there is a nonzero chance this list could be "shut down." (Well, "nonzero" covers a _lot_ of numbers, but as it usually understood in hackerspeak, "nonzero" means "finite," and "finite" means "a credible chance." It is this with which I disagree.) There is virtually no chance that even fairly egregious threats would allow the government to "shut down" a public forum. Prior restraint and all that. I suppose there is some slight chance that John Gilmore could be held liable in some way for messages flowing through his "toad" machine, and that hence the instantiation of the Cypherpunks list _on toad_ could be affected. But I am skeptical even of this. In past cases where the government felt a newspaper or magazine had published or planned to publish material they felt was illegal ("The Progressive" and "The New York Times," for example), the ongoing operations of these newspapers were not stopped. (There may be cases people can dig up where some newspaper or newsletter was "shut down," but I think such cases would be hard to find in the last several decades. Am I wrong on this?) * Second, there are indeed various laws about threatening the President. And there are laws about directly threatening others as well. ("Directly threatening" is a fuzzy idea, which I don't plan to debate here.) However, recall that Senator Jesse Helms elliptically threatened President Clinton by saying that Clinton had probably better be wearing a bullet-proof vest if he ever visited Helms' part of the country. (Even the Republicans were shocked by this, and, I surmise, cast Helms into the outer darkness, as Helms has been keeping a low profile for the past 18 months.) * Third, while I am bored with Bell's "single note" point of view ("I have a solution for this") and while I feel his "assassination politics" is both naive and derivative, I don't think his advocacy of AP constitutes a direct threat to anyone. He is not actually setting up the betting markets which would make AP more of a reality, nor is he calling for the killing of any particilar persons. * Fourth, merely discussing alternative political systems is not enough to trigger legal action, at least not today. * Finally, there may be provisions in the Terrorism Act (don't know precise name, but Clinton signed it into law a few months ago) which could conceivably trigger having certain groups classified as "terrorist groups." The law is too new and too untested, I think, to have any implications for a mailing list such as ours. Frankly, the list is much likelier to die off from debates about fascism and Hillary's investments than it is to be "shut down" by government action. --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

Re: OECD on Crypto
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:22 AM 6/5/96 -0700, Mixmaster wrote: >OECD NEWS RELEASE - Paris, 10 May 1996 > >OECD EXPERTS BEGIN DRAFTING CRYPTOGRAPHY GUIDELINES > >Cryptography experts from OECD countries have begun drafting a >proposal for OECD Cryptography Policy Guidelines that governments can >use as a guide to formulate their national policies on encryption. > >Many governments are under pressure within their own countries to >develop a national position on cryptography, This is bullshit. If anything, it's exactly the opposite: It is the GOVERNMENTS and those who hold government jobs who are doing the "pressuring." I haven't seen more than a trickle of desire for a "national position on cryptography." What Internet-people want is the ELIMINATION of a "national position on cryptography," I think. >which is used in computer >technology to protect everything from product designs to health and >tax records and global correspondence. But the needs of global >technologies and applications require an international --rather than a >strictly national -- approach to policymaking. In other words, various Constitutions are getting in the way! Tough! > The fast-paced >development of the Global Information Infrastructure adds an element >of urgency. In other words, the governments are feeling that the situation is getting out of their control! Excellent, that's progress. > >The business community, individuals and national security and law enforcement >agencies are all pressing for encryption guidelines BULL! The businesses are saying, "Don't restrict crypto." The individuals are saying, "Don't restrict crypto!" So-called "law enforcement" agencies are saying, "We're losing control of the public! Where's '1984' when we need it!" > and the OECD will strive to >reflect the legitimate interests of all these groups as it drafts Guidelines. I don't think so. >The private sector is closely involved in drafting the Guidelines, >with business representatives from the Business and Industry Advisory >Committee (BIAC) participating at the meeting. Gee, what about THE INDIVIDUALS? You know, the ones you steal your tax money from? That's right, the peons. >The OECD meeting, which took place on 8 May, was hosted by the US >Department of State in Washington DC. That's because the USG is the most unhappy, because its Constitution is making it very difficult to ban crypto. It was held immediately after a >Second Business Government Forum on Global Cryptography Policy in >Washington DC on 7 May, which was cosponsored by the OECD, the >International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the Business and Industry Advisory >Committee (BIAC) to the OECD. It probably had a similar lack of participation by ordinary citizens and netizens. Do I detect a pattern here? > Two similar conferences took place in Paris in >December, when OECD countries and business representatives met for the >first time to discuss international cryptography policy. Probably because they had gotten wind a few months before of a serious potential danger to the continued hegemony of governments over the people. > >The process of drafting the OECD Cryptography Policy Guidelines will >continue at an experts meeting in June and is due for completion in >early 1997. It's already too late! >For further information, please contact Ms. Hiroko Kamata, OECD >Directorate for Science, >Technology and Industry (tel. 331 45 24 80 04 - fax. 331 45 24 93 32 - >e-mail. hiroko.kamata(a)oecd.org) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: SF Bay Area Physical Cpunks Meeting, June 8th, Stanford Turing Aud
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:15 PM 6/6/96 -0700, Just Rich wrote: >This Saturday, Turing Auditorium, Noon-5. Unrestricted Ethernet >connectivity (both thinnet and 10BaseT) will be available; email me for an >IP address. Turing Aud has a Mac and a PC on the Net connected to an >EXCELLENT presentation system. If you have something you'd like to show >off, this is the place, and we're still short on topics. > If you have a GPS receiver, head for 37.4296875N 122.1783752E. That's specified to a resolution of about 2/5 of an inch. If everyone heads to this exact spot, it's going to be a VERY friendly meeting! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0