December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE?
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[..] : "Ecash" is a registered trademark of DigiCash. It is registered : with the Benelux trademark office and the United States : trademark office. I believe that it is considered unwise to use : minor variations on trademarked names, but I'm not an : intellectual property rights lawyer. The Benelux (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) trademark laws don't allow for slight variations, certainly not if there is a change that people get confused, it is very very likey that the judges of the benelux trademark court will decide that ecash and e-cash are just to simular, and will thus confuse the public. (art 5 lid 1 BMW) btw: I'm surprised DigiCash didn't file for a European Trademark, but opted for Benelux and US protection. bEST Regards, -- -AJ-

1 0

Re: Surf-filter lists
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Vlad: How can consumers make an informed decision as to which filter >they wish to purchase, if they are not told exactly what information >each product is filtering out? > >Meeks et al may be guilty of flamboyant, emotionalistic prose, but I >find the concept that the public is expected to buy various filters >without knowing what they filter...frankly, ridiculous. Flamboyant prose? Moi? Never! More to the point, as I wrote at the end of the original CWD, it's a bait-and-switch maneuver. Go after porn, they say, but the censor political information. And you don't know about it. -Declan

3 2

Re: Why <jf_avon@citenet.net> was blocked.
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On 15 Jul 96 at 21:28, Anonymous Remail Service wrote: > >On 13 Jul 96 at 22:22, root(a)mail.demon.net wrote: > > > >Could you please explain me why my message was blocked? > > Because you're an asshole? Why in the world would you ask the > entire fucking cypherpunks list, instead of just > root(a)mail.demon.net, to "please explain me[SIC] why my message was > blocked?" You are constantly harassing, so you were blocked. Deal > with it. me Dear flamer, Obviously, you did not learn to read. Go back to school. I asked the root(a)mail.demon.net to explain why I was blocked and I asked CPunks to reply to the post "below", which was my original question. What I asked on the CPunks list was the following: Is the fact that a realdeal.exe /per (wiped with zeroes) processed drive weakens the idea encryption of a Secure Drive 1.4a'ed drive? So, dear anonymous coward, go to hell. Jean-Francois Avon - -- 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 iQEVAgUBMeqeosiycyXFit0NAQFgbQgAnsRkMewRP8VezehwytWIcIKh/ty2UVQo /rh8BhUW+VePXCpL1rudLzr9ZWaq6akPTkpA5HHmDLARGMw2fu/0ZSuS/OSlGgz6 sKSXbKtTHqVCn+mOvpl2+lBD5bt4LTIoanY9a/uQ6rt5pZG9B4m5ztyM945vY62C QVyfvqEh1c2Iqbbud9BmeLnmAoaM0cXQJdeyhOerZ/38k+2/sUXOWtVlz3h1Rf6g 3SptAJ9wdsbdDPBuy0AC3MIQHiTgGAClDDOZAbsIB3v4NapqedktdcyGXQj9XKpF O6qn6rEnWhek0JrDVFBwyXbXu9JgQfqNetd7a5jvDM57bxBIpifA4A== =1T1A -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Seek-and-Destroy
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've thought about similar things... I thought it would be more interesting to start feeding it a huge list of words so that my host would show up on just about any search.. Or, feed it an infinite string of characters. Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: Ryan.Russell cc: snow, declan From: snow @ smoke.suba.com @ smtp Date: 07/16/96 02:26:39 PM Subject: Re: Seek-and-Destroy On 16 Jul 1996, Ryan Russell/SYBASE wrote: > I tried it... > it just seemed to threaten me for about 10 minutes, and > then disconnected. Couldn't see any effect. > What was supposed to happen? Would it have tied up a "spider" for ten minutes? If so, then that is probably enough. Personally I'd have started dumping bogus link, or set up about 2000 circular links to keep the damn thing busy. Petro, Christopher C. petro(a)suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow(a)smoke.suba.com

1 0

Re: Seek-and-Destroy
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I tried it... it just seemed to threaten me for about 10 minutes, and then disconnected. Couldn't see any effect. What was supposed to happen? Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: declan cc: cypherpunks From: snow @ smoke.suba.com @ smtp Date: 07/15/96 04:20:54 PM Subject: Re: Seek-and-Destroy On Mon, 15 Jul 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: > Do NOT visit: > http://xxx.lanl.gov/seek-and-destroy > So of course I did. Very Interesting. Those guys *rock*. > The sysadmins for xxx.lanl.gov don't like robots visiting their web site, They also aren't real happy with PC's, Mac's, or Netscape. Petro, Christopher C. petro(a)suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> snow(a)smoke.suba.com

1 0

Re: Advances in Quantum crypto
by Niels Provos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi! AFAIK is 24 km the longest connection ever realised so far. The group of N. Gisin at the Univsersity of Geneva tested a quantum channel below the Geneva lake with a length of 24 km. To be found at: A. Mueller, H. Zbinden and N. Gisin, Nature 378, 449(1995) A Bibliography of Quantum Cryptography can be found at http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~crepeau/Biblio-QC.html I think there is something on Quantum Cryptography from Los Alamos National Laboratory on Crypto'96 in August. They managed 7.5 km so far ? Greetings Niels Provos =8) - - PHYSnet Rechnerverbund PGP V2.6 Public key via finger or key server Niels Provos Universitaet Hamburg WWW: http://www.physnet.uni-hamburg.de/provos/ Jungiusstrasse 9 E-Mail: provos(a)wserver.physnet.uni-hamburg.de Germany 20355 Hamburg Tel.: +49 40 4123-2504 Fax: -6571 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAgUBMetz8sweILHCAJhBAQFRCgP/ZX4KomR7kOMrozj56iksT6Cej/Xmpoo7 WviBQFbE5SMwaDmm+z2qRMPdcmpGHVkB1ct7zElS25gDT38IglIQqn77F3/hHpdO 4a6+bE28Qy/rR4kSTUjCzWHYsI6Q9U8ZoHpLpZKT8i90Y9KwSvfK1yd+9eIj/q3S g8c9XgoyRaM= =IVfw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Stego Software
by sparks＠bah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- cypherpunks(a)toad.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCXAwUBMeudE+J+JZd/Y4yVAQFk1gQKA34V+zLw4kfr2kGFy4mLIVQ64cvY6LIo hnqAbX83gIkIgyDcs7DTEpwcanxsdGM4b0ggulvuAFJVPv3VgkK3iw/9lXhEeswG UA6En0v0s9apR5JFGiGIqSnqRt11X+jehgSLMDI/IVALazn9SE9bbw03osv4xF33 Lh/Z7HOKS4071g== =SjHE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Charles E. Sparks Booz Allen & Hamilton http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/index.htm In God we trust, All Others we encrypt Public Key at: http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/cp_1.htm

1 0

Re: Surf-filter lists
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:06 PM 7/16/96, David Sternlight wrote: >YOU and I may find it so, but you simply don't understand the mentality of >those who will buy such filters without question. Vast numbers of people >take the word of their minister, government, morality "guide", guru, or >teacher without question. Why do you think Scientology has gone as far as >it has? Furthermore, I saw absolutely nothing "surprising" in the topics filtered by the NetNinny and similar filters. That is, it is not surprising to me that G-rated filters would filter all mentions of homosexuality, "safe sex," condoms, anal sex, sex in general, etc. There may be those who think that children need to be exposed to proper condom use in the third grade (California's public schools think this, for example), and those that think abortion information should not be blocked, but there are clearly many parents who are happy to have little Johnny not exposed to any of the above and similar topics. If this means little Johnny is denied access to the NOW web page, or the NAMBLA safe sex page, so be it. If enough people want detailed explanations of what is being blocked, and will vote with their dollars, then probably some filter vendors will choose to make this information available. Sounds fair to me. --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: 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