December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Borders *are* transparent
by David Murray 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:24 AM 7/18/96 -0700, TCM wrote: > ... Borders _are_ transparent. There are >so _many_ degrees of freedom for getting stuff across borders. The hope >that a bunch of *bits* can be stopped in ludicrous. > >_This_ is why I expect the Netscape beta to arrive overseas pretty soon. Undoubtedly. Interestingly (to me, anyway), I noticed on my last trip to Hong Kong that the Netscape products for sale in the legitimate shops had "US/Canada only - not for export" (or similar) printed on the packaging. (Also of note, the hot Pirate CD of that time "Internet Xpress", with such goodies as Symantec Java Cafe, Spry Internet Office Pro, Netscape Fast Track Server v2.0, Commerce Builder v1.5, also featured ViaCrypt PGP v2.71 for Windows. Nice to see encryption as a must have net tool...) dm

1 0

Kellstrom Calls for DT Funding
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a "briefing" on TWA 800 when one of the reporters tossed Big Jim Kellstrom (Deputy Director in Charge of the New York Office) of the FBI a softball question about what he needed to fight terrorism; he took the opportunity to call for full funding of the Digital Telephony Bill. He said the usual about how bad guys conspire and we need to tap. DCF

2 1

Borders *are* transparent
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:51 AM 7/18/96, snow wrote: >On Tue, 16 Jul 1996, David Sternlight wrote: >> At 3:36 AM -0700 7/16/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >> >At 04:18 PM 7/15/96 -0700, sameer wrote: >> >> Not like that's tough to figure out. Congrats. It's cool to >> >>actually be able to connect to my webserver using real encryption. >> >>Glad the lawyers don't think Barksdale is going to jail anymore. >> >I'm glad too. So how many minutes did it take to leak overseas? >> It doesn't "leak overseas" as if there were some regrettable lapse in the >> plumbing. Someone has to commit a felony violation of Federal law. > > No they don't. If they are French, Russian, English, Greek, etc. They > _may_ be violating their countries laws, but they are not necessarily >violating ours. This is a terribly important point: if a citizen of Foobaria succeeds in connecting to the Netscape site--perhaps by experimenting with various combinations of domain names and submitted address/zipcode combinations--and Netscape sends him the file, he has not committed a crime in his own country. (Unless they have their own laws....) Ironically, under the ITARs, as I understand them, a citizen of Foobaria who "exports" (= retrieves from Netscape's site) such materials actually *has* violated our ITARs. (It is possible for persons outside the U.S. to violate U.S. laws, of course. You can all imagine examples.) Prosecuting a person in Foobaria for violating U.S. ITAR regs would of course be problematic, and unlikely. Likewise, much "export-controlled" software is freely purchasable without any form of identification or proof of citizenship/residency in any of thousands of U.S. software stores. (I don't know if the copies of Netscape Navigator on the shelves in U.S. stores are now the "U.S." version, as opposed to be a somwhat-crippled version, but I sure do know that a *lot* of nominally-export-controlled software _is_ freely purchasable.) Much of this software goes out of the country in luggage. In my various flights out of the U.S. over the years, never have my bags been so much as glanced at, except presumably for bombs with sniffers, scanners, etc. Further, I have mailed optical disks out of the country--a single one of these can store a whole lot of stuff. (As I said in a 1992 interview, a DAT is like a shoulder-fired Stinger missile.) On a trip to France and Monaco last year, I deliberately carried several optical cartridges and couple of DATs, all crammed with software, PGP, RSADSI's MailSafe, Mathematica, etc. To make a point, and as props for my talk on crypto anarchy. Certainly there was no checking on the way out at SFO, and no checking whatsoever at Charles de Gaulle in Paris. (On my return trip, the bored inspector in San Francisco asked what my purpose in being overseas has been. Had I said "tourism" I would've been waved through. Instead, for interest, I said "Meeting with Russian cryptographers in Monte Carlo," just to see what would happen. He asked me what "cryptographers" are or do... "They make secret codes." He then waved me through. Sigh.) None of this is surprising, of course. Borders _are_ transparent. There are so _many_ degrees of freedom for getting stuff across borders. The hope that a bunch of *bits* can be stopped in ludicrous. _This_ is why I expect the Netscape beta to arrive overseas pretty soon. --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."

3 2

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Filtering is not "wrong," Cerridwyn, it is a rational response to garbage >being spewed constantly. I filter lots of items. I read "Scientific >American" and "The Economist" because they filter (or "censor," in the >sense some are objecting to here) nonsense about "queer rights" and >"peircing fashions," to name but a few things I have no interest in hearing >about. Choosing what you read and choosing what other people (including your children) read is the difference between filtering and censoring. I didn't say filtering was wrong, I said censorship was wrong. >If I had kids, I'd make sure that lots of negative memes were kept away >from them until they reached an age where it no longer mattered, where >there views are already basically set. I am sorry to hear. I think we underestimate childrens' ability to decide for themselves what is right and wrong, and I think the seemingly inate desire for parents to want children that are all but clones of themselves is especially dangerous and certainly harmful. I think that restricting access to "negative memes" from anyone (including children) actually does more harm than good. I didn't particularly want to get into this, so I will leave it up to you to read John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" for very strong arguements in my support. >I see nothing wrong in this. Anyone who disagrees is, of course, free to >set his filters differently, but not to insist that my filters be changed. I absolutely agree. Unfortunately, the filtering programs we were discussing allow a user very little, if any, ability to "set his filters differently". >And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can >and can't do. Again, I agree, and thought I had made that clear. However, that doesn't mean we can't object on a social (opposed to governmental) level. I repeat: just because a government doesn't have the right to oppose private censorship doesn't make it OK. >Unfortunately, I think many on this list are so taken by "liberalistic" >notions that they think the State needs to intervene to stop me from >filtering my son's access to "The Joys of Queer Sex." I was under the impression that most on the list were avowed libertarians, and would rather the State didn't intervene in any part of your (or your son's) life. However, I would still argue that restricting your son's access is more of a detriment to your son than allowing it, then discussing why it is Wrong (or whatever) and why he feels it is necessary to read such things. I would also argue that you are right in that the State has no right to force you to raise your child in any way. But, as I stated in another post, the problem is not just the government. >Some parents simply get tired of spending time each night trying to undo >the propaganda taught in many public school, such as books like "I Have Two >Mommies." Many of these parents eventually give up and put their kids in >religious or private schools (even though they continue to pay taxes for >schools their own children are no longer using). I fail to see how trying to breed attitudes that you allegedly avow is "propaganda". The book you cited is intended as a means of teaching acceptance, not necessarily approval. You say you tolerate homosexuals, but that is not a wide-spread practice yet. Violence and ridicule is the more common response to openly homosexual behaviour, and that book is meant to stop such bigoted reactions. You'll note that nowhere in the book does it say anyone *should* be homosexual, it merely says that it's okay if you are and you should accept others who are. >Queers are, as far as I'm concerned, perfectly free to practice their >AIDS-spreading practices to any and all receptive anuses they can find, but >I eschew this lifestyle and will fight to the death for this right to avoid >their practices from being forced on me or my children (if I had any, which >I don't). Please show me an instance where you or your children (if you had any) would have been forced into practicing homosexuality by anything taught in a public school or shown on a web page. Exposure to a lifestyle and having that life- style's practices forced on you are not the same. Would you allow your children to learn about Nazi Germany? I find the lifestyle of the Nazi positively disgusting, but wouldn't think to prevent my child from learning about it. Same thing with other cultures, religions, political principles, etc. The simple fact that this particular issue is regarding sexuality bears no significance to the arguement. A child (or any other person) should not be restricted access to any sort of information available about any topic, unless she is restricting her own access (filtering). <garbage regarding AIDS/etc ignored> //cerridwyn//

3 2

Re: Responding to Pre-dawn Unannounced Ninja Raids
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > SANDY SANDFORT > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . >Nope, not true. Say what you will about California, but the one >thing it did right was pass a law that said anyone found in your >house at night is presumptively a threat to which you may respond >with deadly force. Shoot on sight, in other words. I find it hard to believe "anyone". If "anyone" happens to be law enforcement, as has been proven again and again: yer screwed no matter what (either dead or in jail forever). //cerridwyn//

2 1

Re: Reverse Engineer
by elfgard＠pooh-corner.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What do you mean by "reverse engineer?" I have heard this word several times especially in the world of hacking, but... can someone tell me what it really meant? Interesting question. Hmmm... I would answer this question for you but then I would have to kill you. That is basically like asking a car thief to tell yuo about how he breaks into cars and what cars hes broken into lately. My suggestion to you is to pick up one of those MEGA lame books like "What is a Cyberpunk!" and read that. It may not tell you shit, but it will give you a broad understanding about what you want to know. Elfgard *The One and Only* elfgard(a)netlite.com http://www.netlite.com

2 1

Inventor of radio...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, I would like to correct a misconception about who is credited with the invention of radio. Nikola Tesla has held the credit for the creation since the resolution of the original lawsuit in the mid-80's. Tata. Jim Choate Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: Mail-order Ph.D.'s > From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) > Date: Fri, 19 Jul 96 07:37:24 EDT > > He also invented the radio, but Marconi+Popov stole the credit from him.

2 1

Home Made Telephone Voice Changer
by Jerome Tan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know how to make a home-made telephone voice changer?

2 1

Re: Surf-filter lists
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:31 PM 7/17/96 -0500, you wrote: ><rant>A Private organization cannot "censor" anything. The fundamental >definition of the word require some agent of the government take action >to censor. To accuse Surf-Watch, net-nanny, AOL, MSU, AT&T, or whatever >of "censorship" accomplishes nothing except to make us look the >fool.</rant> I am not going to go into petty details about the actual definition of censor, and how private organizations do censor, but private citizens have the option of getting their information from an uncensored source, the same as when a government censors. The only difference is the government is allowed to use physical coercion, whereas on the surface corporations are not yet allowed to do so. I will, however, address your argument on a different level. Your view of this issue typifies one of the primary objections I have to many of the arguments amongst libertarians. The problem is NOT JUST GOVERNMENT. It is with any authority that has power over you. When a private entity becomes powerful enough that they have the ability to forcefully exert their influence over you, they are just as bad as Government. Granted, Surf-Watch and so forth haven't yet become that big, but there are some rather large Media companies who have, as well as institutions such as the Church. For example, I think our mainstream news IS censored, and not necessarily by the government, more by corporations intent on keeping us in the mindframe that will make them the most money and prolong and extend their power. I am not saying that a private entity doesn't or shouldn't have the Legal Right to censor, but I am saying that censorship of any form by any entity is a Bad Thing and the public (not the government, mind) should fight it on all fronts. This, in my mind, is the only reason to be dismayed by the decision on the CDA. It was found that the government shouldn't censor on the Internet because there were forms of Corporate censorship available. It would have truely been a great day if the decision had been that the government shouldn't censor on the Internet because censorship is wrong. >I agree that the problem with the "bait-and-switch" filtering of net >materials by these various filtering packages needs to be addressed. If I >want to protect my kids from seeing alt.naughty.pictures, I shoudl still >be able to unfilter political and health speech. The real problem isn't >censorship, it's disclosure by the makers of filtering packages about >what exactly their packages are going to filter for me and my family. That is another problem, not the Real Problem. The Real Problem is that parents are scared to have to explain to children why something they've seen is wrong or bad. They are afraid to teach their children their beliefs and values, so instead would rather just filter everything that conflicts with those beliefs, so that they believe it by default. This is a big problem when those children grow away from their parent's influence though, and creates bigotry and intolerance. (They don't know why they believe what they do, but believe it with fearful vengeance). //cerridwyn//

3 2

Re: Opiated file systems
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:05 AM 7/18/96, jim bell wrote: >It has long occurred to me, considering the size and low power of the >typical 3.5" hard drive compared with the size of the typical house or >apartment, that it might be an interesting project to remotely connect such >a (hidden) drive to your computer using a reasonably surreptious link that >is difficult to trace. Say, an IR optical link, a single bare (unjacketed) >optical fiber, a LAN with hidden nodes, or a similar system. Maybe an >inductive pickup. In any raid, they'll have to decide what to take, and >chances are very good that they won't find every hidden item. I think the druggies call this a "rat line": two apartments next to each other, with the humans living in one and the drugs stored in the other. The drugs are gotten through a hole in the wall. (Hey, I'm not saying it works, or that it stops raids, prosecutions, convictions, etc. Just noting the existence.) Any multi-unit apartment can do this already, with data. The hard disk can be upstairs and two units away, connected with Ethernet (as many apartment buildings out here in California already are), or whatever. Any raid on Unit 3B, for example, finds that no files are stored locally. A separate investigation and/or search warrant for whereever the files actually are stored would be of course problematic and/or delayed. (Friends of mine have worked on "remote storage" ideas for exactly such applications. Clearly there are many options: storage in other local sites, storage in offshore sites, encrypted storage, even storage by a "priest" functionary ("Son, I am ready to receive your digitally transmitted confession.").) Lots of possibilities. For various reasons, few have been pursued. (Mostly because, I think, there have been relatively few raids on data, and when there have been raids, there were usually other HUMINT-type factors involved. E.g., few child porn rings are going to be broken only on the basis of seized disks. As this situation changes, expect more "data archival" services to evolve.) --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."

3 3