December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Canada investigating Net-regulations -- call CBC-Radio now!
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[David Jones is the head of EF-Canada. Call CBC Radio with your comments now! (I did, and left them on the voice mailbox that Morning Edition graciously provided.) --Declan] >Return-Path: <efc-talk-owner(a)insight.mcmaster.ca> >Date: Mon, 22 Jul 96 11:55:41 EDT >From: djones(a)insight.mcmaster.ca (David Jones) >To: efc-talk(a)insight.mcmaster.ca >Subject: call CBC with your thoughts on BC Attorney General's remarks >Sender: efc-talk-owner(a)insight.mcmaster.ca >Precedence: bulk >Reply-To: djones(a)insight.mcmaster.ca (David Jones) >X-Efc-Web-Site: http://www.efc.ca >X-Efc-Archive: gopher://insight.mcmaster.ca/11/org/efc > > Murmurings about Internet regulation in British Columbia > >I just finished a very brief interview on CBC-Radio in Vancouver. >They called asking for a comment on the BC Attorney General's >statement that he has instructed his ministry to investigate whether >the Internet can be regulated. The reason this is in the news >is because of the so-called "white power" and "hate" web pages that >are now available through a BC Internet Service Provider (Fairview Tech), >after being kicked off an Ontario ISP's computers (Pathyway Communications). > > >I hadn't had my morning coffee, so perhaps you can be more articulate >on this issue that I was. I encourage you to call the CBC-Radio's >"talk-back lines" at (604) 662-6976 -- they are inviting comments >on this issue. Seriously, if you don't want the BC Attorney General >to regulate the Internet, speak now or forever hold your peace. > > >Background (from Vancouver Sun) > > B.C. Internet provider is the largest Canadian site for racist material > gopher://insight.mcmaster.ca/00/org/efc/media/vancouver-sun.19jul96a > > Hate on Internet investigated > gopher://insight.mcmaster.ca/00/org/efc/media/vancouver-sun.19jul96b > > Don't expect easy solutions to cyberspace abuse > gopher://insight.mcmaster.ca/00/org/efc/media/times-colonist.14jul96 > > >See also: > > "Skin-Net" > http://www.ftcnet.com/~skinhds/main.htm > > "Freedom Site in Exile" > http://www.ftcnet.com/~freedom/ > > >- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >David Jones -- Electronic Frontier Canada >djones(a)efc.ca -- http://www.efc.ca/

2 1

Re: Netscape
by Dan Weinstein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 22 Jul 96 at 8:38, you wrote: > I don't know why you're quoting your own licensing agreement to me. > When I said, "you need no permission to provide these products," by > "you" I was referring to your company, Netscape. As in, you don't > need the NSA's permission to write and sell good crypto > domestically, even if (arguably) they can limit export. I missed what you meant, it was late and I was thinking you were refering to RE-distribution by those that downloaded it. You also have made an error, I am not associated with Netscape. Dan Weinstein djw(a)vplus.com http://www.vplus.com/~djw PGP public key is available from my Home Page. All opinions expressed above are mine. "I understand by 'freedom of Spirit' something quite definite - the unconditional will to say No, where it is dangerous to say No. Friedrich Nietzsche

1 0

Re: SHI_fty
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:45 AM 7/22/96 EDT, you wrote: >jya(a)pipeline.com (John Young) writes: > >> "Microsoft Sees A Major Shift For Computers." John Markoff >> >> MS is preparing to release new software that would bring >> the most fundamental change to personal computers since >> the machines were invented in the 1970's. > >You mean, Microsoft Bob? I saw MS Bob on clearance at the Wiz on 86th st... >$15/copy, not moving. > hahaahahaha Actually they are referring to IE4 aka Detroit technology. That's all. "Major Shift" cause the browser is an ole container. Not exactly earth shattering but that's good PR for ya. --j

1 0

FW: SHI_fty
by Bill Olson (EDP) 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > >At 08:45 AM 7/22/96 EDT, you wrote: >>jya(a)pipeline.com (John Young) writes: >> >>> "Microsoft Sees A Major Shift For Computers." John Markoff >>> >>> MS is preparing to release new software that would bring >>> the most fundamental change to personal computers since >>> the machines were invented in the 1970's. >> >>You mean, Microsoft Bob? I saw MS Bob on clearance at the Wiz on 86th st... >>$15/copy, not moving. >> > >hahaahahaha > >Actually they are referring to IE4 aka Detroit technology. > >That's all. "Major Shift" cause the browser is an ole container. Not exactly >earth shattering but that's good PR for ya. > >--j > The technology is old hat, but the concept is moving. Keep in mind that this is a series of steps... >Yep, I work at MS. Isn't it neat? >

1 0

No Subject
by Dave Ross 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

RAF does not work in this area. If any of you are interested (I have no idea what this is about), please feel free to say I suggested you contact her. -dave ross davros(a)raf.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 21 Jul 1996 14:20:06 -0700 (PDT) From: June Peoples <june@dang> To: davros(a)raf.com dave, someone called me with a request last week for people who have a good background in internet security, "firewalls" and encryption etc. I thought Jim Bennett and perhaps some of your other contacts would work. Could you e-mail Jim's phone and e-mail to Sandra Huie (Jonathon's wife) at shuie(a)masterteam.com Thanks, JP

1 0

Re: Netscape
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 6:23 PM 7/22/96, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >David suggests that Netscape will be royally screwed if the gov't >cracks down on them because of "monkeywrenchers". but quite the >opposite is possible. as TCM fondly points out, sometimes you win >by losing and lose by winning (not necessarily in those words). > >by creating a very large, glaring, and visceral >public spectacle of the government cracking down on crypto, the >resulting outcry could be absolutely enormous and resonate throughout >the entire population. it would be a vivid portrayal of what the >government has been doing quietly and secretly for decades, and >perhaps the public might finally understand what is going on. By the way, I certainly don't want to be seen as a main promulagator of "monkeywrenching" Netscape's system! I made a few snide/droll/obvious points that the software will likely leak out fairly quickly, but I was not _advocating_ such a thing, nor was I suggesting that someone be pinned up on the wall as a decoy (;-}). I don't think Netscape is misbehaving. I do have some concerns about a method to control leakage that requires data bases of names and addresses of persons accessing a site. One can imagine this concept extended to requiring data bases of names and addresses to be accessed before Web sites may be connected to. (Especially when such "verifications" are so easily spoofed or the results subverted. For example, if the results reported here are valid, the Netscape downloads are not serialized, so any of the millions who download it could be the exporters...essentially nothing is gained, but the precedent is set for demanding identity before downloading...note that retail software purchases do not as yet require identification--you pay your money and that's that. Even if some dirty furriner could buy his software and take it home in his luggage.) --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: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:55 7/21/96, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >As I said, the kid who hit me in the head with a stick was 3-4 years >younger than me. You skipped that part. Correspondently, I could beat >him easily (I did, but his mother soon interrupted me), which was >obvious to him. So he had plenty of information that would deter a >rational person. He had all the reasons to "to curb his impulse", as >you said, and he could have thought about his punishment. Yes, he hit you. But the question relevant to this discussion is: would he have hit you had you been carrying a firearm, risking not just being beat up, but death itself? I sincerely doubt it. In fact, one could say that you were hit *because* you didn't carry a firearm. The truth is, an armed society is a polite society. -- 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.

2 1

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Vinnie Moscaritolo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You pop a claymore in a building with any substance up to the level of >concrete re-enforced, and you _will_ be going with them. booby traping your home is a really stupid idea, I promise that your dog/child/spouse will be theone to accidentally set it off. besides for this you can get sued.. every hear the one about the case of a guy who constantly had his radar detector stolen out his his car, he decides to set a trap and rigs his next one with exposive. The perp steals the box, sells it. someclown powers it up on his dash board and BANG!.. well you'd figure justice is served, but the NYC judges awarded the mass of flesh damages and charged the guy with manslaughter. only in Amerika.. Vinnie Moscaritolo "Law - Samoan Style" http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A

3 2

Re: Netscape
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:41 AM 7/22/96 GMT, Dan Weinstein wrote: >On Sat, 20 Jul 1996 18:13:45 -0800, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> >wrote: > >>At 03:27 PM 7/20/96 -0700, Tom Weinstein wrote: >> >>>> Do you Seriously Believe that Netscape would prefer foreigners >>>> to develop and use competing products? Of course not. They are >>>> probably secretly applauding the brave exporters. >>> >>>You are wrong. We are worried that our permission to provide these >>>products will be withdrawn. >> >>As far as I can tell, you need no "permission" to "provide these products", >>at least domestically. The only restrictions that have been implied have >>been over the delivery of encryption over the 'net, and even that is >>questionable. >> > >Then you need to read the license agreement: > >1. Netscape Communications Corporation ("Netscape") grants to you a >non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, license to use this Beta version of >the Netscape network navigator (the "Software"), in binary executable >form for evaluation and trial use purposes only. THIS SOFTWARE >CONTAINS CODE THAT DISABLES MOST OF ITS FEATURES AFTER SEPTEMBER 17, >1996. I don't know why you're quoting your own licensing agreement to me. When I said, "you need no permission to provide these products," by "you" I was referring to your company, Netscape. As in, you don't need the NSA's permission to write and sell good crypto domestically, even if (arguably) they can limit export. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Brute Force DES
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:32 AM 7/22/96 -6, Peter Trei wrote: >Any one up for a distributed brute force attack on single DES? My >back-of-the-envelope calculations and guesstimates put this on the >hairy edge of doability (the critical factor is how many machines can >be recruited - a non-trivial cash prize would help). I volunteer my 120 MHZ Pentium. A lot more Pentiums are out there now than a year ago. That makes it more feasible. A lot more people with full net connections. Like most Americans, I have a flat rate net connection and a flat rate local phone connection so could run a cracking session permanently (as long as no one tells my ISP). We need a full test of the Winsock cracking client in any case. It wasn't working very well last time. DCF

2 1