December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Bernstein files for partial summary judgement in crypto case
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here's the press release on the latest development in the Bernstein case. Mark your calendars for the "oral arguments" on this motion, which cypherpunks are invited to attend in full formal dress regalia. The hearing will occur on September 20 at high noon, in San Francisco. Bring your Stetson. Check the URL at the bottom of this message to see the latest filings in the case. It'll take us a day or two to get them all in there. We have statements from various crypto luminaries about the impact of ITAR on the free exchange of software, etc. The government's cross-motion, arguing their side of the issue, will arrive within days, and we'll scan that in as well. John BERNSTEIN FILES FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN CRYPTO CASE Claims Government's Restrictions on Export of Cryptographic Speech Violates First Amendment July 26, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Counsel 301/375-8856, ssteele(a)eff.org Mike Godwin, Staff Counsel 510/548-3290, mnemonic(a)eff.org Lori Fena, Executive Director 415/436-9333, lori(a)eff.org San Francisco, CA -- A University of Illinois at Chicago faculty member who is suing the U.S. Department of State will file a motion Friday that could strengthen his claim that government restrictions on information about cryptography violate the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech. Relying on Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's prior ruling that computer source code is speech protected by the First Amendment, mathematician Daniel J. Bernstein will file a motion for partial summary judgment in his suit against the State Department. In his 45-page memorandum in support of his motion, Bernstein sets forth several First Amendment arguments: LEGAL ARGUMENTS * Any legal framework that requires a license for First Amendment protected speech, which may be granted or withheld at the discretion of a government official, is a prior restraint on speech. In order for this framework to be acceptable, the government has the burden of showing that publication will "surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation or its people" and that the regulation at issue is necessary to prevent this damage. The government has not met this burden regarding the ITAR legal framework. * Because restrictions on speech about cryptography are content-based, the court must apply a strict scrutiny test in determining whether individuals can be punished for engaging in this speech. A strict scrutiny test requires that a regulation be necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. The ITAR regulatory scheme has adopted the *most* restrictive approach by prohibiting all speech in the area of cryptography. * The ITAR regulatory framework lacks the necessary procedural safeguards. Grants of administrative discretion must be limited by clear standards, and judicial review must be available. "Quite simply, the ITAR Scheme allows its administrative agencies to make inconsistent, incorrect and sometimes incomprehensible decisions censoring speech, all without the protections of judicial review or oversight." * The ITAR framework is unconstitutionally vague. The government doesn't even seem to know what its regulations include and exclude! Here, the lack of standards has allowed the government to misuse a statute aimed at commercial, military arms sales to limit academic and scientific publication. * The ITAR regulatory scheme is overbroad. In an internal memo written almost 20 years ago, the government's own Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the ITAR s licensing standards "are not sufficiently precise to guard against arbitrary and inconsistent administrative action." The OLC specifically warned that the coverage was so broad it could apply to "communication of unclassified information by a technical lecturer at a university or to the conversation of a United States engineer who meets with foreign friends at home to discuss matters of theoretical interest." This is exactly what is happening here, and it is unconstitutional. CASE BACKGROUND While a graduate student at the University of California at Berkeley, Bernstein completed the development of an encryption equation (an "algorithm") he calls "Snuffle." Bernstein wishes to publish a) the algorithm, (b) a mathematical paper describing and explaining the algorithm, and (c) the "source code" for a computer program that incorporates the algorithm. Bernstein also wishes to discuss these items at mathematical conferences, college classrooms and other open, public meetings. The Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (the ITAR regulatory scheme) required Bernstein to submit his ideas about cryptography to the government for review, to register as an arms dealer, and to apply for and obtain from the government a license to publish his ideas. Failure to do so would result in severe civil and criminal penalties. Bernstein believes this is a violation of his First Amendment rights and has sued the government. In the first phase of this litigation, the government argued that since Bernstein's ideas were expressed, in part, in source code, they were not protected by the First Amendment. On April 15, 1996, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel in the Northern District of California rejected that argument and held for the first time that computer source code is protected speech for purposes of the First Amendment. Because of its far-reaching implications, the Bernstein case is being watched closely by privacy advocates, the computer industry, the export and cryptography communities, and First Amendment activists. In fact, several members of these communities provided declarations that were submitted in support of Bernstein's motion. ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS Lead counsel on the case is Cindy Cohn of the San Mateo law firm of McGlashan & Sarrail, who is offering her services pro bono. Major additional pro bono legal assistance is being provided by Lee Tien of Berkeley; M. Edward Ross of the San Francisco law firm of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss; and James Wheaton and Elizabeth Pritzger of the First Amendment Project in Oakland. ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a non-profit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information. EFF is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and helped collect members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is available from EFF's online archives: http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ ftp.eff.org, pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ gopher.eff.org, 1/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/

1 0

Anonymous Web Services Inc.
by J. Kent Hastings 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Cpunx, ecashers, and others: Oh joy, these guys are good publicity for our side. :^( Arghh!!! http://www.angelfire.com/pg1/digicrime/index.html > Anonymous Web Services Inc. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > [Image] > > What We Do > > * We make deals > > * We rip people off for you > > * We get you money > > * We get you WebServer accounts > > * We work for you > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > We are an anonymous server that relays our pages through such services > as Angelfire, C2, and many other services. We are in business for you > benefit. > > If you have an America Online account, we have the capabilities to > give you complete unlimited access, and you pay nothing! > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Have you always wanted that $8,000.00 snowboard? Or that 4x4 FORD > F150? Well, if you give us the URL of the product you would like us to > get for you, just send the needed information, and we will go > "shopping" for you. Of course this isn't totally free, you have to pay > 5%. Hey, paying $5.00 for a $100.00 CD Player isn't bad! > > We deal in the anonymous market, as do most World Wide Web servers, > and that is why security is the top priority, wherever you go. If you > want to set up an account with us, so you can steal stuff, "buy" > stuff, and make anonymous web pages, send us your credit card number, > and other needed information such as your expiration date, and we will > set up an accounts for you! We also accept ECash! > > Do you know somebody that you really hate? Tell us their name, and > what you would like to do to them, and we can make them wanted by the > Alabamba police, or we can anonymously transfer money from their > credit cards or checking accounts to you! Now dowsn't that sound > great? Free money, and free pleasure! > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > If you create an accounts with us, you will feel nothing but the best > superiority to all of the little losers peddling aourd you. Consider > our service as, your own personal hacker. Except you can tell us > whatever you want, and make us fuck up your enemies. We don't kill > people, we just take away their old identity. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Send email to WebMaster(a)digicrime.org > > Special Offer... > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > If you are in Illinois, particularly in the northern part, we can give > you FREE Ameritech Voice Mail! Free? You ask, well there is an easy > way to get the numbers. You can either E-Mail me for instructions, or > E-Mail me for a already made box. We have some boxes that allow you to > make calls from, for example, if you have a friend in Australia, give > him a call, talk to him for an hour. It is totally free, illegal, and > untraceable. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Last Updated Tue Jul 2 01:04:34 1996 > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > This web page was provided by Angelfire Communications. > The material on this page are the responsibility of its author, not > Angelfire Communications.Kent -- Browse sample chapters of new books by bestselling authors, pay online with a credit card or ecash, then download books in HTML or Adobe Acrobat format from the web at http://www.pulpless.com/

1 0

[NOISE IS NOISE] Re: Rand and smoking Re: Flaws of Thinkers (Jefferson, Rand, Nietzsche, Voltaire, etc.) [NOISE E. D.]
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Uh.. yabbut we were talking about insisting that her followers >smoke, which is different from saying that smoking is cool. >Well, for most people it is different. You fail to understand the precisely reasoned Aristotelian syllogistic logic of Ms. Rand's position (you heretic!): 1) Smoking is a result of fire. 2) Fire is cool. 3) Therefore, smoking is cool. Q.E.D. 4) Logic is cool, and non-logic is non-cool 5) We're cool 6) Therefore, light up that cigarette or be excommunicated! Q.E.D. >P.S. I wonder how often the regularly scheduled programming of >citizen units _is_ exactly? If you don't see the fnords, they won't eat you. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Confuse Authority!

1 0

Re: LIMBAUGH ON TV
by Chris Adams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 25 Jul 96 13:35:44 -0800, hallam(a)Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote: >I'm still rather amused by the terms of your bet, $50 vs 25L. >At current exchange rates 25 Lire is more like 2 cents. > >I thought I had already given my 2 cents. I think he meant 25 british Pounds and used L since the pound sign isn't kosher on many systems. // Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> - Webpages for sale! Se habla JavaScript! // Automatically receive my resume or PGPKEY by sending email with a subject // of 'send PGPKEY' or 'send resume'. Capitalization counts so be careful!

1 0

Re: DES brute force? (was: Re: Borders *are* transparent)
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:10 7/23/96, Mixmaster wrote: >The problem with banking applications is that cracking a real key >causes lots of real damage. I don't think it is illegal (as long >as you don't withdraw somebody else's money), but publishing e.g. >one of the DES keys used for the "EC Card" PIN verification would >bring the European ATM system close to collapse. Finding a self- >generated key, on the other hand, is not very impressive. Keys can be changed. Sounds like a good target to me. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

1 0

Re: PREDICTIONS, MUST BE BREAK TIME...
by Julian Assange 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The AFIM can 'rebuild' fingerprints to overcome dirt a scar tissue > problems. It also uses a special lense which reads only 3d images so > photocopies and a cut off fingers will not work. > > Tyler Whitaker > ttw(a)spire.com > Senior Internet Engineer > Spire Technologies. It is interesting to note that when your fingers / hands are cut off they automagically turn into two dimensional objects. -- "Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis, _God in the Dock_ +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+ |Julian Assange RSO | PO Box 2031 BARKER | Secret Analytic Guy Union | |proff(a)suburbia.net | VIC 3122 AUSTRALIA | finger for PGP key hash ID = | |proff(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu | FAX +61-3-98199066 | 0619737CCC143F6DEA73E27378933690 | +---------------------+--------------------+----------------------------------+

1 0

Re: Twenty Bank Robbers -- Game theory:)
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My commentary below supposes that the robbers are _not_ cypherpunks, but are fanatic logicians, and prefer poverty to death. It also assumes that all motions are non-debatable, which reduces the amount of dealmaking possible. At 05:52 AM 7/26/96 -0400, Rabid Wombat <wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org> wrote: >If only 19 and 20 are left, 19 has 50% of the vote, and can take all. #20 >loses out. >Therefore, with 18,19, and 20 left, 20 will take whatever 18 offers, as >it is better than getting nothing. >With 17,18,19,20 left, 17 should propose a split with 20, who will likely >get a smaller cut from 18, because of the above. > >With 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, three votes are needed, reducing the take for >the majority, so no one other than #16 is acting in their best interest >to approve a split, except for #19 trying to avoid losing out to 17/20 in >the next round. Not enough for a majority. Wrong. If 16 gets killed, 18 knows that 17 and 20 will probably split the money, so it's in 18's interest to team with 16 and 19. 15, 17, and 20 can also vote to split the money. 14's position is a bit shakier, but he's got more people to deal with. ...>... >All even-numbered cypherpunks should then expect a short life expectancy. >(You are number 6; who is number 1?) What do you want? - The money! # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # Dispel Authority!

1 0

Am I protected by ignorance?
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Fri Jul 26 11:26:59 1996 I have a question about legal issues: Lets asume I have a service provider in switzerland who gives me web-space. I publish strong cryptography there. The server itself is physically in USA, but my domain is something like "www.itar.ch" (a swiss web-address). Since there is no way for me to know where the server stands, do I violate the ITAR, and if so, am I realistically prosecutable? - --------< fate favors the prepared mind >-------- Remo Pini rp(a)rpini.com PGP: http://www.rpini.com/remopini/rpcrypto.html - ------< words are what reality is made of >------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMfiPZBFhy5sz+bTpAQHbKggAi7kG/Bp8x+fApJTTSDw6AAcXe+U5TyVG ladtDvnQOQE66raEqvfTWUPuyB5Fa9xqRAe/kpSkxU7802TPMnxMii3dJPLaOMv7 eYZx58VVVeSmbnC3qnN4SU5uSYnS7dNXE50kPaZDq0bap3O2LVB0yTL30xqBuF5+ EJs73dJQRKt/UipbymTLmeThDM1bRj0CxRL5b1OHHoYM5yDMhpxrS5KWnke7Pxqe lTM3K+XTdpLC3MgmD15hpAfpn82uYGm8a21EsJ/ODLdxrdEv7mRm36V7EYH+JAqM 9jM3Hy38vnGHk6inB2dLGofa5tzFdbEhW2TtL6chRAnmemQkmVN8jg== =eWJb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Silliness on cypherpunks
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While I don't intend to try to impose my views on what cypherpunks should discuss, I would like to inject some comments on some recent trends that I throw into the "silliness" category. The first issue is the seemingly sincere attempts at answering questions that are obviously irrelevant. IMO cypherpunks are not "Mr. Answer Man" for every question someone has regarding computers or electrical engineering. Sure, most of us are pretty capable of answering these questions - that doesn't mean that we should. Whenever I asked a silly question at home, my dad used to tell me - "look it up". The process of finding the answer was actually far more important than the answer itself. We should attempt to ignore these kinds of questions. Maybe eventually they will go away. My other "peeve of the day" is the wonderful introduction of the "mee too" postings to cypherpunks. I know it makes you feel really great to donate your old TRS-80 to the cause of brute-forcing DES, but honestly, most of us don't share your joy. Nuff said. For the record, I appreciate good humor (I get a real kick out of the "Cypherpunk Enquirer"). I think humor absolutely has a place on this list, I just differentiate humor from some of the "silliness" trends I noted above. Clay *************************************************************************** Clay Olbon II * Clay.Olbon(a)dynetics.com Systems Engineer * PGP262 public key on web page Dynetics, Inc. * http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html ***************************************************************** TANSTAAFL

1 0

Re: Bare fibers
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:52 AM 7/25/96 -0700, abostick(a)netcom.com (Alan Bostick) wrote: >As has been mentioned earlier, all an attacker has to do is encourage >some of the light to exit the fiber, by bending it, contacting it with >a detector, etc. >If the detector is sensitive enough, the loss induced by this is minimal. >This sort of tapping is exactly the sort of thing quantum cryptography >is supposed to prevent, or at least identify. So far, so good. >Nothing short of quantum methods is going to spot the tap, >unless you happen to come across the tap by inspecting the entire >length of the fiber. Pressurized conduit is a favorite paranoid technique - if the Bad Guy cuts open the conduit to get at the fiber, your alarm system notices the pressure drop and goes off. For slightly less paranoid scenarios, you can use heavy narrow conduit with epoxied joints, and the extra alarm wire or two to help detect cutting. For substantially more paranoid types, you can always fill your conduit with some sort of flammable substance that reats with air... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> # Dispel Authority!

2 1