December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: It tolls for thee
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:42 AM 6/7/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 7:29 AM 6/7/96, jim bell wrote: > >>Even so, given how much noise we've been hearing out of DC on the subject >>of the Internet, digital cash, and good encryption, I'd say SOMEBODY is >>getting a bit worried. I haven't exactly been keeping this stuff a secret: >>What do you think their reaction has been, so far? When those >>government-types start considering various scary scenarios, what do you >>think they are imagining? > >I don't think any significant amount of the current stuff coming out of >Washington has anything to do with my words, your words, or the words of >anyone on this or any other forum I know about. Okay, I was not trying to suggest that any particular source is followed. What I'm noticing is the almost uniformly "pessimistic" (as to the fate of the government) views I've read on the various computer networks, and the uniformly hostile reactions to government proposals. This can't be reassuring to the people in power today. >Rather, the reasons for their actions and hyperbole about the Net, the Web, >online porn, money laundering, the "information highway," and all that >trendy stuff is because they can see many of the same trends we see. > >While I have a certain amount of pride that my single-page "Crypto >Anarchist Manifesto" essentially nailed a bunch of trends which have become >obvious to all in the 8 years after I issued it, I don't for a picosecond >think anything I wrote then or since has had any significant effect on >proposed leglislation. Don't be so sure. Legislators, alone, don't have the smarts to figure out why they "needed" a Clipper-chip proposal, or the capacity to tap 1% of the phone calls, or other recent government proposals. Government is usually very good at ignoring problems long after they become problems. The fact that they're so hot to control the Internet suggests to me that somebody has been talking to them about what is going to happen. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Clinton To Cipher Whitewater Video (fwd)
by Herr Wendigo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An entity claiming to be Matthew Gaylor wrote: >From freematt(a)coil.com Fri Jun 7 12:31:25 1996 Date: Fri, 7 Jun 1996 12:02:40 -0400 X-Sender: freematt(a)bronze.coil.com Message-Id: <v0213050badddc7a0b29f(a)[198.4.94.200]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: freematt(a)coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) From: freematt(a)coil.com (Matthew Gaylor) Subject: Clinton To Cipher Whitewater Video From: softwa19(a)us.net (Charles R. Smith) Subject: Clinton To Cipher Whitewater Video President Clinton is scheduled to video-tape his testimony in the second Whitewater trial. He will do so from the oval office in July. The first video taped testimony he sent to an Arkansas court room was scrambled in order to protect his personal and political privacy. One can only assume that the President will also encrypt his second testimony for the same reasons. I have no problem with the President exercising his rights to use encryption. That is what the defensive technology is for. However, President Clinton is also engaged in an effort to deny that very same right from ordinary citizens. The Clinton administration has tried for several years to ban or remove all defensive encryption security from computers, stressing that crime had a higher priority over privacy. His latest Clipper III proposal would require all U.S. citizens to turn over their keys (escrow) so that the FBI can ensure that no one is using their computer for criminal activities. In effect, the proposal would invalidate the First, Fourth and Fifth amendments. Escrow is the modern equal to the FBI demanding your house key. This is so the FBI can check in every now and then. Yet, instead of making life safer, the proposal will leave us wide open for hacker attack. It is a fact that the Clinton record of computer security is so poor that the GAO reported over 160,000 successful penetrations against just the Defense Department in 1995. In fact, during one incident, a 16 year old hacker could have started a war between North Korea and America (Rome NY USAF Base/Korean Atomic Research Facility 1995). Please note - DOD has the best computer security record of all government agencies! That means the situation at the FBI, BATF, FAA, HUD and IRS is worse. Much worse. The computers that control the military, financial, industrial, medical and political heart of America are waiting for a Digital Pearl Harbor, left undefended by Presidental order. His proposal also assumes that a huge bureaucracy erected to monitor escrowed keys would be more secure than our nuclear arsenal. Ridiculous. President Clinton has risked global nuclear war to push intrusive and obsolete ideas which protect nothing. Instead, President Clinton should heed the GAO report which concluded that securing million dollar military computers with no encryption software, no firewalls and untrained, part-timers, is the wrong thing to do. President Clinton demands his personal and legal privacy but refuses to support the same for you and me. President Clinton has risked our personal safety and our common democracy in order to create a large bureaucracy of lawyers who will do nothing but count bits. The President should take a lesson from his own actions, cipher thyself, and protect America. He should join Senator Bob Dole and a whole crowd of Bi-partisan elected officals in supporting the PROCODE bill (S. 1726). This bill gives every American the right to encrypt. The right to personal privacy. The same right Bill Clinton enjoyed during the last video session at the Whitehouse. 1 if by land, 2 if by sea. Paul Revere - Encryption 1775 Charles R. Smith SOFTWAR Richmond, VA http://ally.ios.com/~softwa19 PCYPHER signature: 4279C640DB607D4D13B808082D7CC6F23938320C1956E31A50781D192D627672 601D141C6516051C061976462B382C294542435F19665B2B316E174955445C56 5A506675180400041F030A001472657A6A1201191C0E0003784FCCE47ACB9531 E1EE5997D5E34A97A351C22B2F1871573A85BB02E3CB5C046FB24E80478AEB74 4063578E1E8019425A08091923FE6D4CA375669185FD8935B361CA6B65949FE3 57E8629F5981F5030E0AAD2BECA669808B2A038E1D89E810398F0A4DDCD2F5A7 B1E6417290D1290346BE790894F6AD1E790C57A0B457C1BE85A5D3CFB42E38E8 D5C6BDAECA57F968898F345920D5804CF5832D70534F5C66230AF099F68CAECD **************************************************************************** Subscribe to Freematt's Alerts: Pro-Individual Rights Issues Send a blank message to: freematt(a)coil.com with the words subscribe FA on the subject line. List is private and moderated (7-30 messages per week) Matthew Gaylor,1933 E. Dublin-Granville Rd.,#176, Columbus, OH 43229 **************************************************************************** -- Mark Rogaski | Why read when you can just sit and | Member GTI System Admin | stare at things? | Programmers Local wendigo(a)gti.net | Any expressed opinions are my own | # 0xfffe wendigo(a)pobox.com | unless they can get me in trouble. | APL-CPIO

1 0

CDT Policy Post 2.23 - Congress/FTC Focus on Online Privacy Issues
by editor＠cdt.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ _____ _______ / ____| __ \__ __| ____ ___ ____ __ | | | | | | | | / __ \____ / (_)______ __ / __ \____ _____/ /_ | | | | | | | | / /_/ / __ \/ / / ___/ / / / / /_/ / __ \/ ___/ __/ | |____| |__| | | | / ____/ /_/ / / / /__/ /_/ / / ____/ /_/ (__ ) /_ \_____|_____/ |_| /_/ \____/_/_/\___/\__, / /_/ \____/____/\__/ The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 23 June 7, 1996 CONTENTS: (1) Congress/FTC Focus on Online Privacy Issues - Solutions Differ (2) Text of EFF, CDT, PFAW, VTW Letter to Rep. Franks (R-NJ) on impact of "Children's Privacy" Bill (3) Join Senator Burns Live Online June 11, 10pm ET (4) How to Subscribe/Unsubscribe (5) About CDT, contacting us ** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner in tact ** Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of <editor(a)cdt.org> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** UPDATE: DECISION IS NEAR IN FIGHT TO SAVE FREE SPEECH ONLINE ** An announcement from the Court is expected any time. Be sure to visit http://www.cdt.org/ciec/ for the latest news and information! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) CONGRESS/FTC FOCUS ON ONLINE PRIVACY - OFFER DIVERGENT SOLUTIONS The increasing use of the Internet by children, combined with the ease of collecting personal information online, raise serious privacy issues. However, while there is broad consensus on the goal of giving people more control over the collection and use of personal information online, some of the solutions being offered may have far-reaching, though perhaps inadvertent, impact on the free flow of information in interactive media. Over the past several months, concerns about the availability and use of personal information in the online world, particularly with respect to the collection and use of information about children, have prompted the Congress and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to seriously consider this important issue. The approaches to this issue fall broadly into two distinct categories: * Create Criminal Penalties For The Collection And Use Of Personal Information About Kids Without Parental Consent. * Encourage The Development And Use Of Technologies That Enable Users and Parents To Limit The Amount Of Personal Information They and Their Children Reveal Online. Legislation designed to restrict the collection and use of personal information about children without parental consent was recently introduced by Rep Bob Franks (R-NJ). The bill has sparked concerns from cyber-rights advocates that it may end up increasing the collection of personal information online and result in restrictions on the free flow of information (see the attached letter from EFF, People for the American Way Action Fund, VTW, and CDT below). Recent hearings before the FTC emphasized the broad consensus about the need to give individuals more control over the collection and use of personal information. The FTC hearings highlighted the availability of technologies which empower users and parents to exercise more control over the collection and use of such information, and the possibility that existing methods, including the PICS standards, can be enhanced to enable users to express preferences about how and to what extent they are willing to have personal information reused (although much work needs to be done before this is fully implemented). In addition, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), a long time champion of privacy issues, told the FTC panel that he would like to encourage the development of technologies that enable users to control the amount of personal information they reveal online. Markey also emphasized that Congress should consider legislation in this area if such technologies are not developed or are not effective. Markey told the FTC: "We should see if there are technological tools that can empower consumers. Where they don't exist, or where a particular industry refuses to embrace this code of electronic ethics in a way that solves this problem, then the government is obliged to step in and do something." Markey also announced that he intends to introduce legislation soon to give consumers the right to know that information is being collected about them, notice that personal information may be reused or sold, and the right to say "no" to the reuse or sale of their personal information. Markey's legislation would also commission a study of existing online privacy practices (The full text of Rep. Markey's statement is available at CDT's privacy issues web page URL below.) The FTC hearings illustrated that there is broad concern about the collection and use of personal information online. There was also great substantial support expressed for technological solutions to address this issue. As a result, the FTC has requested that the industry report back to the Commission in 6 months on progress towards developing technologies that enhance user control over the collection and use of personal information online. CDT is encouraged that Congress and the FTC have taken such strong interest in the issue of online privacy, and we look forward to working with all interested parties to ensure that solutions give users control over the collection and use of personal information and do not adversely affect the free flow of information online. More information, including CDT's testimony before the FTC panel and Rep. Markey's statement, and a demonstration illustrating the amount of personal information collected during the normal course of surfing the Web, can be found at CDT's Privacy Issues page: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (2) Letter from EFF, PFAW Action Fund, VTW & CDT to Rep. Bob Franks Regarding "Children's Privacy" (HR 3508) Bill The following letter was sent last week to Representative Bob Franks (R-NJ) regarding the "Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act" (HR 3508) from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, People for the American Way Action Fund, the Voters Telecommunications Watch, and the Center for Democracy and Technology. Among other things, the groups expressed concern that, as currently drafted, the bill raises some of the same privacy and free flow of information issues raised by the Exon/Coats "Communications Decency Act" to the extent that it is extremely difficult to know whether or not a person visiting a web site is or is not a child without requiring all visitors to identify themselves. While commending Rep. Franks for his efforts and expressing support for the goal of his legislation, the letter outlines several concerns about the impact of the bill on the Internet. The groups pledged to work with Rep. Franks and other interested members of Congress to explore technological solutions which empower users and parents to control the use of personal information and preserve the free flow of information. The Franks bill enjoys broad support from a number of conservative "pro-family" groups such as the Christian Coalition, Enough Is Enough!, and the National Law Center for Children and Families, as well as privacy groups such as EPIC, Privacy Times Publisher Evan Hendricks and Privacy Journal Publisher Robert Ellis Smith. The text of HR 3508 is available at: http://www.cdt.org/privacy/children/ The full text of the letter from EFF, PFAW Action Fund, VTW and CDT follows: ---------- June 4, 1996 Representative Bob Franks 429 Cannon House Office Building Washington, DC 20515 Dear Representative Franks: We are writing to commend your efforts to protect children's privacy. We are pleased that you have begun a process to put these important issues at the center of the political debate. We believe, however, that the solutions recommended in your bill, -- the "Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act" (HR 3508) -- particularly as they relate to the exchange of information on the Internet, will not only increase the collection of information about children in certain circumstances but will also criminalize behavior in a vast array of unintended situations, thereby compromising the free flow of information online. With the rising popularity of the Internet and commercial online services, concerns regarding the vulnerabilities of unsupervised children's activities online must be addressed. Indeed, although the Internet offers children unprecedented and important new educational and recreational opportunities, the medium also may offer access to inappropriate material, or exposure to unfair marketing or information collection practices. Solutions to these problems must be carefully analyzed and should take into account both the unique nature of the Internet, as well as the multitude of First Amendment and privacy rights at stake for all who seek to read, communicate, and associate with others in the online environment. In fact, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), whose responsibility it is to police the existence and proliferation of unfair or deceptive advertising and information practices has scheduled hearings for June 4 and 5 to look at these very issues as they apply to the Internet. Because your bill was drafted to apply to all media we are concerned that its application in the Internet context may lead to unintended consequences. We ask that you examine, together with the FTC, the unique qualities of the Internet and the problems that result from regulating activity at the information publisher or Web site operator end. In its application to the Internet, the Children's Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act is both over-inclusive, covering virtually all who participate in the Internet, and ineffective, in that it leaves substantial loopholes for those who engage in the behavior at which the bill is targeted. The term "personal information," the basic regulatory target of the bill, is defined in such as way that it may include nothing more than an electronic mail address which by its nature, gives no indication of the age or physical location of a user. Furthermore, the term "list broker," is drafted to cover any entity which exchanges personal information in the course of its operation. The vast majority of World Wide Web site operators, as well as anyone who operates a listserv, mailing list or other information distribution mechanism, all collect, store, and may well exchange, email addresses. Then, unless Web site operators obtain parental consent before collecting information, they risk criminal penalties for violation of section (a)(4). The difficulty in compliance is two-fold. First, information providers on the Internet have no way of distinguishing children from adults. In fact, compliance with the bill could well lead to an increase in the collection of information about children and adults, only compounding privacy risks. Even with the imposition of an unacceptably intrusive national ID system (a system that none of us support), it would still be essentially impossible for an information publisher or Web site operator to establish the age of the user visiting the providers site. Second, the requirement to disclose the source of personal information about children to parents creates unclear new obligations on Internet information providers. In fact, many of the information providers who would be covered by your bill do not keep track of the source of their information and thus may not have the ability to comply with the statute. Compliance with this section could well lead to an increase in the overall collection of personal information about Internet users, thereby compounding privacy risks. Imposed identification procedures applied to the World Wide Web under the threat of criminal penalties would limit all Internet users' ability to read, speak, receive information and interact online under constitutionally-protected conditions of anonymity. Further, requiring parental consent in all instances or requiring providers to disclose information to parents collected from children fails to acknowledge the distinction between young children and teenagers and their rights under the Constitution. Finally, section (a)(6) which criminalizes any distribution or receipt of personal information where the receiver has knowledge or "reason to believe that the information will be used to abuse the child or physically harm the child" is well-intentioned, but potentially so broad as to cover anyone who receives and discloses personal information about a child. The bill establishes no clear standard of care or level of knowledge necessary to meet this requirement, leaving everyone on the Internet in doubt about whether or not they may be violating this new crime. Schools and organizations who publish directories as well as newspapers who publish the identity of a child in a news story could be subject to prosecution because they had "reason to know" that the information may end up in the possession of bad actors. Given all of these difficulties in applying your bill to the Internet, and given the importance of addressing children's privacy issues, we suggest that examination of alternatives is in order. Empowering parents to protect their children's privacy with existing technological tools and fair information practices by the industry will help ensure that the Internet continues to grow and thrive for both commercial and noncommercial endeavors. For example, software already on the market such as Cyberpatrol, as well as industry-standard technologies such as the Platform for Internet Content Selection (PICS) enable people -- including parents and their children -- to restrict access to sites which practice objectionable marketing and information collection techniques. At present, PICS technology, along with other innovative products, allows parents to filter and block-out materials that contain objectionable content or block access to sites with inappropriate or abusive marketing practices. Current technology can enable parents to: * prevent their children from accessing Web sites with inappropriate information practices -- as defined by the parent or a consumer or privacy organization of the parent's choice; * prevent their children from revealing personal information such as name, address, and e-mail address to others; * install security measures such as passwords that prevent their child from changing rules about Web site access or information disclosure, collection and use that the parent has established. The Internet community is already considering extensions to the PICS specifications which will enable individual users and parents to block the transmission of their personal information to Web sites they visit and to express a preference about how and to what extent they are willing to have personal information reused. PICS, Cyberpatrol and other technologies can help eradicate the deceptive and inappropriate practices your bill seeks to address without compromising the rights of users or content providers. Several of us have had the opportunity to talk with you and your staff about this legislation. We appreciate your willingness to discuss these issues and look forward to working with you in this important area in the hopes that technological alternatives combined with better industry practices and much more narrowly crafted legislation will help protect this nation's children in the online world, consistent with First Amendment and privacy principles. Sincerely, The Center for Democracy and Technology The Electronic Frontier Foundation People For the American Way Action Fund Voters Telecommunications Watch ---------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (3) Join Senator Conrad Burns Live Online to Discuss Encryption Policy The Night Before His Subcommittee Holds a Hearing On the Issue! --> Visit http://www.hotwired.com/wiredside/ for details <-- In what is becoming the newest way for Congress to read the net.community's opinion on issues, Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) will be on HotWired on June 11th @ 10pm EST to discuss the encryption issue with all attendees. The next day, Senator Burns will chair the first of two scheduled hearings on the encryption issue with industry luminaries. Never before has the public had this much access to legislators without geographical proximity. Cheaper than teleconferencing, and more direct and unfiltered than the traditional press, online chats allow the public to directly question and hear the answers of Congress. Have a question about encryption policy that you've never been able to find out from the government? Come to the HotWired chat and ask Senator Burns to be your advocate to press the witnesses and the White House on these issues. The online chat is at 10pm EDT (7pm PDT) on Tuesday June 11, the night before the first hearing. HotWired's WiredSide chat is at: http://www.hotwired.com/wiredside/ Next Tuesday's forum is another in a series of planned events, and is part of a broader project coordinated by CDT and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) designed to bring the Internet Community into the debate and encourage members of Congress to work with the Net.community on vital Internet policy issues. The transcript from last week's discussion with Congressman Rick White is now available -- for information about the transcript, previous events with other members of Congress, and upcoming events, please check CDT's newest Issues Page, "Congress and the Net": http://www.cdt.org/net_congress/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (4) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by more than 9,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to policy-posts-request(a)cdt.org with a subject: subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with a subject of: unsubscribe policy-posts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (5) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info(a)cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/ FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Policy Post 2.23 6/7/96 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

middle-man may be moving...
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It looks like I'm going to have to move the middle-man remailer. The nym server at alpha.c2.org has been down for several days. This directly affects the middle-man remailer. Since nymrod(a)nym.jpunix.com has made it to Raph's list, I'm going to contact the admin at jpunix.com and see if it's ok for me to point the middle-man remailer nym at his server. Maybe it will be a little more reliable and allow the middle-man remailer to work properly. Stay tuned for further details as they occur! middle-man-admin(a)alpha.c2.org (don't bother to reply, it doesn't work)

1 0

Re: Class III InfoWar: TST Article
by ScottMorris 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[snip] > >On the substance of Schwartau's claims about "HERF guns," I'm a bit >skeptical that this is a real threat _at this time_. I'll say more on this >later. > >So, why am I so skeptical? For a couple of reasons: > >1. Conventional explosives work perfectly fine for a lot of sabotage >efforts. It is unlikely that a mysterrious van is likely to be parked next >to a London brokerage or computer firm in the City of London, given their >history of terrorism. Why bother with explosives when you can pull a manhole cover and climb down with a <insert power tool of choice here, I prefer the chainsaw myself>. All that copper/fiber has to run somewhere in the area to get into the buildings. When the conductor is gone say goodnight. Or the alternative, pour gas into the access covers and light it. Simple is better. >2. To be a credible threat, there usually needs to be some form of >"demonstration." I have heard of no such thing. Absent such a public >demonstration, I find it hard to believe that beancounters would OK the >giving away of hundreds of millions of dollars for a threat which is >abstract and hard to understand for laymen. Short of a tac nuke there won't be one any time soon. The herf/emp/sci-fi weapon of choice is not feasible *at this time*. Remember the square law. If it isn't in the machine room, or damn close it won't work. One has to wonder why the assorted experts on this haven't built a working model and given a controlled demonstration. >3. This recent story smacks of hype. I'm not saying Schwartau is hyping his >conferences and his book, and his consulting business, just saying it >strikes me as a hyped threat without direct confirmation. While the consultants are hypeing all this I have REAL threats to deal with. > >--Tim May > P.S. I guess I'm going to have to get Eudora Pro so I can filter out the psychos 'R' us persona. ----- My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. Scott L. Morris smorri59(a)mailhost.icubed.net ** They can have my PGP key when they ** ** pry it from my cold dead keyboard! **

1 0

mailing-list through a remailer
by nelson＠crynwr.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Scott Binkley writes: > Having a mailing-list run through a remailer?? Only through a penet-type remailer. It couldn't work at all with a mixmaster-type, and would work but poorly with a ghio-type with reply block. > It would be double blind, and difficult to find out who ran the list. Only if your name isn't Julf. > If you chained the remailers, it would be even more difficult. If you chained the remailers for your subscription, then every message would travel the same path. -russ <nelson(a)crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | PGP ok 11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | It's no mistake to err on Potsdam, NY 13676 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | the side of freedom.

1 0

eTimeouts
by Simon Spero 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Are about to be imposed on Perry and Phil. You don't both have to play with the same tentacle - there are plenty to go around. Now behave, or I won't let you watch todays episode of (smith) Barney. Simon --- Cause maybe (maybe) | In my mind I'm going to Carolina you're gonna be the one that saves me | - back in Chapel Hill May 16th. And after all | Email address remains unchanged You're my firewall - | ........First in Usenet.........

1 0

Re: OECD http://www.oecd.org/news_and_events/release/nw96-46a.htm
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ms. Kamata wrote: >>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. Cryptography policy is a matter of vital public interest; while I assume that actual participation will be limited by the need for a small enough group to actually get work done, the World-Wide Web makes it easy to publish working papers, meeting agendas, drafts, and participant contact information so that the public can keep track of what's being done. There's a lot of broad-level material on your web site (I enjoyed the perspective of http://www.oecd.org/dsti/iccp/legal/top-page.html) but it would be a substantial benefit to the community to provide the in-depth material as well. At 08:39 PM 6/6/96 -0800, Jim Bell wrote, replying to Ms. Kamata's press release: >>OECD EXPERTS BEGIN DRAFTING CRYPTOGRAPHY GUIDELINES >>Many governments are under pressure within their own countries to >>develop a national position on cryptography, > >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. Most governments already have a "national position", restricting cryptography in ways that violate free speech by their citizenry and interfere with commerce to varying degrees. The US has been one of the more egregious violators in this case, since US companies and products dominate the software industry, and national police organs have been strongly opposing the industry's attempts to provide decent security for communications. Industry, on the other hand, has been pressuring government to allow at least enough security to prevent massive fraud and theft and protect proprietary business communications; some parts of industry are willing to compromise if they get this much (perhaps with the added bribe of government contracts to make up for lost opportunities in the free market), while other parts (especially smaller companies, where the costs of bureaucratic compliance have more effect, and where proprietors can speak for the company) take a far stronger view, that freedom of speech cannot be compromised. >>But the needs of global technologies and applications require an >>international --rather than a strictly national -- approach to >>policymaking. The fast-paced development of the Global Information >>Infrastructure adds an element of urgency. The global characteristics of technology render strictly national policymaking increasingly obsolete, because any individual in a free or semi-free computerized country can develop software like PGP which can at most be blocked by vigorous local government action. There are two added forms of urgency - the critical need for security for electronic commerce, which is growing rapidly and increasingly in conflict with nationalist military policies, and the increasing deployment of technology which reduces government control. >>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. >>The OECD meeting, which took place on 8 May, was hosted by the US >>Department of State in Washington DC. Was the meeting announced to at least the public in advance? The schedule on the web page mentioned the 8 May meeting, at least after the fact, but does not list any of the following meetings, and there's no identification of your BIAC committee's members or even the member governments participating. Thanks! # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # http://www.idiom.com/~wcs # Rescind Authority!

2 1

Is the alpha.c2.org 'Nymserver Down?
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

My 'nym seems to be broken again, and I've heard other reports that the alpha.c2.org 'nymserver is down. Yet, Raph's ping list seem to indicate it's healthy: remailer email address history latency uptime ----------------------------------------------------------------------- alpha alias(a)alpha.c2.org +-++**++-++* 49:22 99.66% What's the story?

1 0

"EASYSAFE(R) VERSION 3.0
by caal＠hopf.dnai.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought this may be of interest to the list. >[PRNewswire:Computers-0605.14] 6/5/96 > > EASYSAFE(R) VERSION 3.0 FOR DOS, WINDOWS & WINDOWS 95 'FIRST > NOTEBOOK SECURITY PRODUCT' > > CHICAGO, June 5 /PRNewswire/ - EliaShim Safe Software, a leading > provider of network security products and anti-virus protection > systems, announced at Spring Comdex 96 the release of EasySafe, > version 3.0, the first security and encryption product designed > specifically for notebook computers. > > .. EasySafe provides bullet-proof protection that is easy to install. > .. EasySafe prevents unauthorized use or access through boot password > protection. > .. EasySafe prevents removal or transfer of information via full hard > disk encryption. > .. EasySafe provides keyboard locking after three incorrect password > attempts. > .. EasySafe provides screen blanking after a predetermined period of > inactivity. > .. EasySafe denies system level access to hard disk information. > .. EasySafe can be configured to disable LPT, COM, and Floppy ports. > > Upon boot-up, EasySafe asks the user for a password. A > correctly entered password grants the user access to the computer. > Encryption/decryption of data on the hard disk is dynamic and > completely transparent to the user. The system allows for three > password attempts before locking the computer, and only a cold-boot > reset is possible. After entering the correct password, the disk is > unencrypted dynamically, normal boot up takes place, and the user is > granted access to the system without disk access restrictions or > delay. > > EasySafe includes a DOS/Windows screen saving utility which > blanks the screen after a period of inactivity. The only way to re- > activate the computer is to enter the correct password. > > EasySafe offers two encryption methods. The first encrypts all > data on local hard drives. The second method encrypts boot sectors > and partitions. This prevents unauthorized users from booting from > the "A": drive and accessing the data on the hard disk. This > encryption scheme also protects against the use of disk editing > programs (such as Norton Utilities). Thus, valuable company secrets > remain hidden and secure. EasySafe can be configured to disable LPT, > COM, and Floppy ports to ensure that the information contained on > the hard drive cannot be transferred to another system for later > viewing. > > While annual purchases of notebook computers have increased > steadily, the number of notebooks reported stolen each year is much > more alarming. In 1995, 208,000 notebooks with a value of almost > $640 million were reported stolen by a Columbus, Ohio insurance > company that offers coverage for portable computers (Information > Week - May 6, 1996 issue). EasySafe is the perfect product for > those field professionals whose notebooks contain valuable, > confidential, company information and other sensitive data that is > hundreds of times more valuable than the cost of a notebook. > > Founded in 1983, EliaShim Safe Software has been providing PC > security solutions and anti-virus protection for corporate, > government, educational institutions, and program developers in both > domestic and international markets. Over four million computers are > protected worldwide. Product line includes: EasySafe, MasterSafe, > ViruSafe Gold, and ViruSafe LAN. > > -0- 6/5/96 > /CONTACT: Carl Frederick, Jr., Director of Marketing, EliaShim > Microcomputers, 800-477-5177, or at Spring Comdex 96, Booth . C5431, > 312- > 791-6708/ > > CO: EliaShim Microcomputers, Inc. > ST: Florida > IN: CPR > SU: PDT > >

1 0