December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

Arun you are lost.. >particularly since you are far more likely to use this weaponry in a rage > against a loved one than against someone breaking down your door. Thats plain HCI statistic crap, DONT YOU BELIVE IT, those numbers are based on drug dealers killing other drug dealers.. read the real FBI numbers, they are on the net. Anyways the real reason that the "more likely" argument bothers me is that its like saying that Crypto is more likely to be used by criminals than law abiding citzens. > >I wonder about that -- between Tweedledee Clinton and Tweedledum >Dole, does it matter whether you vote or not? bad attitude. thats the reason we have Her Klinton to begin with,, apathy > The system seems to make sure that before you even get to a >position where someone can seriously vote for you, you've already >sold your soul. there is some truth to that Vinnie Moscaritolo ------------------ "friends come and friends go..but enemies accumulate." http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A

1 0

Re: Gorelick testifies before Senate, unveils new executive order
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:04 7/18/96, David Sternlight wrote: >Serious studies have shown that the kinds of protections to make the >systems we depend on robust against determined and malicious attackers (say >a terrorist government, or one bent on doing a lot of damage in retaliation >for one of our policies they don't like), have costs beyond the capability >of individual private sector actors. Your friendly neighborhood ISP, for >instance, probably can't affort the iron belt and steel suspenders needed >to make his system and its connectivity sabotage-proof, and so on. Even >cheap but clever solutions involving encryption in such systems require >standards and common practices across many institutions. However, the neighorhood IPS doesn't need the kind of defenses required for the powergrid and other crucial systems. The systems that do require such heightend security are typically run by parties that can afford such security. If they choose not to implement them, then it stands to reason that their threat evaluation does not deem it necessary. Let market forces govern, lest we spend money on countermeasures for inflated threats. -- 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: Borders *are* transparent
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sternlight blathered [regarding Tim]: ... >"Nyaah, nyaah, you can't catch me" doesn't mean that if they do they won't >prosecute. Your waving around that stuff in France is not only juvenile, Starting off with defamation is a sure tipoff that what follows is crap. And sure enough...[he sure makes it convenient for sarcastic "cowards" like me to use his own words against him.] >but also may put you in violation of French crypto law. ... Perry's right, DS *would* do it with a dawg. >>... Borders _are_ transparent. ... > >Again you make the long-discredited straw man argument that the purpose of >ITAR is to hermetically seal. It is not. It is to keep legitimate US mass >market purveyors from selling strong crypto overseas, ... You tell the stated purpose, the NSA's own lawyers have told PRZ and others (off the record, of course) that there is a domestic (and therefore a Constitutionally impermissible) purpose. Read the Bill of Rights. >[yadda yadda yadda.] >> >>_This_ is why I expect the Netscape beta to arrive overseas pretty soon. > >Nobody disputes that. It won't be readily available though, except for >those who have no compunctions about software piracy. Hell, they can pay Netscape anonymously. David, if you try double standards around here any more, I will make fun of you more, EVERY TIME. I will not stop. I note that you have the common [but not necessarily fucking] statist flaw of needing to get in the last word in every argument, rather than just agreeing to disagree. Chill out. For the health of the list, please try to tone down the volume and number of your posts to something more closely approaching reasonable.

1 0

lambda 2.09 - French Telco Act Censored?
by jt＠freenix.fr 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

netizen's --> Lambda Bulletin 2.09 <-- contents -->> www.freenix.fr/netizen + Censoring Censorship Attempts French Telco Act's Internet control sections may be unconstitutional. + Encryption : The OECD fails to act on key-escrow policy * * * * * * * * CENSORING CENSORSHIP ATTEMPTS -- A LA FRANCAISE The French Telco Act, which was voted by the Parliament on June 7, may follow the same path than the US Communications Decency Act. A group of Socialists Senators has sent a request to examine eventual unconstitutionality of the law. The new Act, due to meet new criteria for telecoms competition in France, has also taken some steps to create an administrative control of speech and services via online services and the Internet. The new council, le Conseil Supérieur de la Télématique, "could block the free communication of thoughts and opinions, and may eventually establish a principle of preliminary declaration" for online speech, reads the document given to the Conseil Constitutionnel, the supreme watchdog of the French 1958 Constitution (and the principles of the 1789 Declaration des Droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen). Indeed, the law may breach article 34 of the Constitution which says that the Parliament alone could indict rules concerning "the basic garanties given to citizens for the exercice of their civil liberties". But the newly created CST may appreciate if a Web site or a newgroup could be illicite according to the French Penal Code. This "appreciation" is not sufficiently well defined in the Telco Act, constitutionnal jurists said. Article 66 of the Constitution also states that the appreciation of the Penal Code should be the role of the penal judiciary (le Juge Penal), but shouldn't depend on any administrative body or any administrative judge (Juge Administratif). But other voices said that the existing Conseil Supérieur de l'Audiovisuel (which regulates broadcasting content) is based on the same principles. Then, the Conseil Constitutionnel will have to make a difference between a TV program and a Usenet feed. That's what the Philadelphia Court acted when they censored the CDA. Final decision awaited in Paris before the end of July (July 26th in theory). * * * * * * * * OECD FAILS TO ACT ON KEY-ESCROW ENCRYPTION; THE US ACCUSED OF "POLICY LAUNDERING" The Paris-based OECD, the 24-members club of industrialised nations, has failed to take a step towards international recongnition of key-escrow encryption. The meeting of June 26-28 in Paris, scheduled to take a firm decision about the possibility of law enforcement agencies to read electronic mail of private individuals and corporations, didn't succeed to act on a compromise. The OECD's general secretary has no special power to draw regulations and must find a common policy on the matter. Sources said the OECD has been set apart between "the key escrow group" -- mainly USA, France and Britain -- and the "laxist" group -- mainly Japan and Europe's Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Denmark and Finland (Germany was still uncertain). A press release of the OECD says that no final decisions were made. There will be no other comment of the case. "The OECD experts grappled with achieving a balance between respect of national sovereignty and developing an international approach. This dialogue will be continued at a third meeting of the group, scheduled to take place on 26-27 September, in Paris. An OECD spokeswoman said the organisation asked independant experts from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (Washington, DC) to participate in preliminary meetings. The EPIC prefers not to make any comment until the next meeting in September. Sources said the US were willing to "use" the OECD as a "policy laundering" machine : to pressure the organisation in order to have the key escrow policy approved by the 24 countries. US intelligence officials would have been using it as a political weapon at home, where Congress, public-interests groups and industry pressure groups are on the verge to act against any key-escrow policy. * * * * * * * * **LAMBDA SPECIALS -- WEB ONLY!!! - see www.freenix.fr/netizen** Forget the Internet. Here are some subversive archives. Unfortunatly, mainly in French. -->> Coca-Cola's weird business strategy during WW2. (You won't heard this story during 1996 Olympics). Based on a book published in 1993, "For God, Country and Coca-Cola, by Mark Pendergrast (Scribner's Sons Publishing, New York). From the Berlin Olympics to 1945, Coca-Cola builded a strong presence in Germany while sitting besides GI's in the Us War effort. Check interesting pictures taken from the book: >> www.freenix.fr/netizen/special/coca-colabo.html -->> Special Psychedelics French stories about the renewal of medical psychedelic research. And a letter from Tim Leary, psyche pope of the 60's, published in English. >> www.freenix.fr/netizen/special/tl-letter.html * * * * * * * * Jerome Thorel =-= Journaliste/Free-lance Reporter =-= Paris, France =+= the lambda bulletin --> http://www.freenix.fr/netizen =+=

1 0

Re: Borders *are* transparent
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:08 19/07/96 -0700, David Sternlight wrote: >At 11:24 AM -0700 7/18/96, Timothy C. May wrote: > >>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....) ... > It won't be readily available though, except for >those who have no compunctions about software piracy. Is enought information available for someone else to write software that would be able to communicate with Netscape's at the US-level of crypto? If so, the US government is simply forcing Netscape to open a window of opportunity for some foreign software company to come up with a competing product for the international market. A case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

2 1

Re: Opiated file systems
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 18 Jul 96 at 11:01, Adam Back wrote: > For plausibility it would probably be best if very few people used the > duress key feature. And how can you guarantee that? Also: an attacker doesn't care about what percentage of (other) users use duress feature of not. His concern is whether you use it. Note that you'd have to be careful of what you say and do over email in the clear (or encrypted to someone cooperating with an attacker): if you post an excerpt of source code or maybe somehting like Edupage, or if you save mail, there might be reason enough for the attacker to expect to see some of that on your encrypted fs after he's rubber-hosed your key from you. If he doesn't, and he knows you have a possibility of using the duress-key feature... Oh yeah. Psychology is a good way of determining the likelihood of using a duress system. With the extra work and overhead of a duress system, you're better off using stego on some gifs or graphics files. Rob --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

3 2

Re: Firewall Penetration
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:29 PM 7/19/96 +0800, you wrote: >Is it possible to penetrate a firewall? yes. //cerridwyn//

1 0

Re: Filtering out Queers is OK
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 19-JUL-1996 04:37:28.75 >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 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. >And the government is not free to pass any laws about what filter sites can >and can't do. >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." State? I'd call it right for private individuals as well. Ultimately, it's the job of the state, if it has one, to protect the rights of individuals... including minors. Private individuals can protect those rights as well, just as we can stop someone from getting mugged by shooting the mugger. >(As a libertarian, I really don't care what sexual practices others >practice, so long as I am not forced to either fund or witness their >practices. And so long as I am free to filter out their practices as I see >fit, including for my minor children and/or members of my household.) Well, as a libertarian the only excuse I can see for parental rights is parental responsibilities. If something is needed in order to carry out those responsibilities, then the parent has the right to make those decisions (unless it's shown that the parent isn't competent to). But I need to see something before I can say that the parent has that right. It's the same thing that I need to see before I can say that I'm harming some environmentalist by driving my car (global warming or whatever nonsense). It's called proof. >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). Actually, I perfectly well agree with you that schools (especially the public variety) shouldn't be promoting PC values. (We've got a college at Rutgers, Livingston, with the avowed purpose of promoting "diversity." Unsurprisingly, even the administration is beginning to admit it has a reputation for being, shall we say, scholastically unachieving?) Neither should they be promoting any other set of values, other than that of "learn." Parents smart enough to send their kids to such a school will see them succeed, in a properly meritocratic society; ones sending their kids to schools where ideology is more important than giving the kids the information they need to make up their own minds won't see them succeed, overall. >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). Fascinating. So you and I are both opinating from the same amount of direct knowledge of parenting... and I'm going with better and clearer memories of being a child and teenager. >I think of AIDS as "evolution in action." Retroviruses which have existed >for millenia now find new vectors for spreading in our population. I cry no >tears for those dying of AIDS, and work to reduce to tax dollars spent on >such things as "AIDS research." Let those who introduced the new vector pay >for the research. >What do you call ten million AIDS deaths? You figure it out. Well, let's see, it's currently spreading via heterosexual transmission since the "queers" are the ones who've been smart enough to start using condoms. (Check out Southeast Asia, for instance. I've looked at studies (such as from ChristNet) trying to show otherwise; they had so many scientific flaws that I stopped reading.) Think of it as evolution in action. -Allen

1 0

Re: Reverse Engineer
by Seth I. Rich 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. Well, I don't have to be subject to such childishness. Reverse engineering code is like decompiling it. Starting with the compiled code, you can translate it backwards (to some degree) and see how it works. It's not as easy as taking a compiled program and ending up with the original C code, but if it's worth enough to you you -can- end up with the same information. Seth --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Seth I. Rich - seth(a)hygnet.com "Info-Puritan elitist crapola!!" Systems Administrator / Webmaster, HYGNet (pbeilard(a)direct.ca) Rabbits on walls, no problem.

1 0

Re: Opiated file systems
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 18 Jul 96 at 22:48, Adam Back wrote: [..] > The whole system should be designed to withstand scrutiny as to > whether or not there is a duress file system on any given disk, on the > assumption that the opponent as full access to the source. > > ie. the attacker can not tell without the hidden file system key (if > one exists) whether the unused space on your drive is really just > that: unused space filled with garbage, or whether it is in fact > another encrytped filesystem. There has to be a way to tell the system that the sectors are used when not the drive isn't mounted and the filesystem isn't active. > They might be suspicious, but I don't think they would be able to > claim you were in comptempt of court, if you provide the 1st key and > claim there is no other key: the software has support for either 1 > or 2 filesystems. Having a copy of the driver is enough to arouse suspicion. If they don't find anything useful in that one partition, they'll assume the second is in use and that you're not giving up the key. You may very well get accused of maintaining a second system even if you are not and do not have anything incriminating in the one encrypted fs. --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

2 1