December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Denning vs. Gilmore
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:14 PM 7/29/96 +0100, Roderick Simpson wrote: >Today, Monday, July 29, Dorothy Denning begins her debate vs. John Gilmore >over The Absolute Right to Privacy on Wired Online's Brain Tennis site. Do >citizens of the world have an "unalienable right" to privacy - or are there >reasons why governments ought to have access to our communications? This >debate will run daily through August 7. Follow along at >http://www.wired.com/braintennis/. To get into the debate yourself, go to: > >http://www.hotwired.com/cgi-bin/interact/replies_all?msg.21655 > >An excerpt of Dorothy's first post today: > > "I'm not ready to accept 'the cat is out of the bag.' The Wicked Witch of the East wasn't "ready to accept" a house being dropped on her. Denning's personal desires are equally irrelevant. > Let's look for a way of enjoying > the benefits of encryption without > unnecessarily hindering the ability of law > enforcement to perform its mission. I consider the primary benefit of good encryption to be the "hindering the ability of law enforcement to perform" the particularly abusive "mission" they've chosen for themselves. > Let's use encryption for privacy, but also give > law enforcement access to communications and > computer files when there is probable cause > and a judge has issued a court order. Many if not most of us out here believe that the ("probable cause") system is abusive, and has all the prospects of continuing to be abusive in the future. > In some cases, that access must be > surreptitious. But some of us consider such access to be unconstitutional, however "useful" you may believe it to be. In the past, the government has had the extreme luxury of not being forced to convince the public of its "right" to wiretap. Now, the advance of technology is forcing the question of such approval to be answered, and the Denning-types are getting really worried that the public isn't going to give that approval. Tough! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Netscape Security Lies
by source＠iaccess.za 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We have just tested Netscape's security page and it seems they are either lying or have a major bug. All you have to do to confirm this is to go to their page http://home.netscape.com/newsref/ref/netscape-security.html#test and click on the link under the heading Testing the Secure Server link "Here is a secure server you can visit. Do an iptrace and analyse of the interaction between the server and their browser version 3.05bgold and 3.05b, of which both reports that they are not even running a secure version of the server there. We decided to test further and found that the RSA secure server is only SSL 2 and SSL 3 which is what Netscape seems to be touting to the resting of the world saying they have it NOW. Later, if not much later seems far more realistic. I do not like being lied to, mislead or steam rolled by, how about you?

3 2

Re: Taxes in the digicash world
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:17 AM 7/30/96 -0500, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: >Hi > >Suppose that digital cash becomes easy enough to use and becomes the >mainstream medium in most [or at least many] economic transactions. > >The question is, how can the government TECHNICALLY collect taxes? >I do not mean to start `libertarianism vs. socialism' discussion, I >am more interested in the technical aspects of tax collection when >transfers of money are protected by strong crypto.. > >Let's say, maybe this tax would work: every time someone verifies that >a piece of digital cash is valid, s/he has to pay the government a little >percentage of the amount. Since digital banks are easier to control than >other participants of the market, this kind of tax legislation is easier to >enforce. If, for every $1 somebody paid in taxes, he instead (or, in addition to) paid 10 cents to a fund to eliminate the tax collectors, at the end of that year he wouldn't be paying any taxes anymore. That's why AP will work so well. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 16:42 29/07/96 CST, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: >typical 'liberal' solutions to social problems seem (at least to me) all >centered around disallowing failure. ... >I like to point out that evolution always requires multiple generations, >and that when nothing dies, nothing evolves. Just a thought... Evolution also works better with a rich, diverse gene pool. If we define "failure" by the narrow standards of today's needs, and allow those who fail to die, we may be left with people completely unequipped to cope with the radically changed environments that future generations might face. "The first ones now may later be last, for the times, they are a-changing." BTW, have you read "Watership Down" by (forgot the first name) Adams? It illustrates what I am trying to say rather well. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0

Re: New Anti-Terrorism Pact
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From the Reuters story: > The ministers also vowed to prevent extremists from using the Internet > computer network to plan attacks and spread bomb-making instructions. Yawn. [ ... I guess they'll have to rough it and use the phone. ] ______c_____________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * Tiv^H^H^H IBM * Austin TX * For the time being, m5(a)tivoli.com * m101(a)io.com * <URL:http://www.io.com/~m101> * three heads and eight arms.

1 0

Re: Let's Say "No!" to Single, World Versions of Software
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 15:13 30/07/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >It is imperative that Netscape, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and the other players >be pressured/urged/cajoled to commit to introducing strong, unescrowed >crypto for the *domestic* versions, even if not for export versions. I agree. Foreign buyers will look askance at software that is "second grade" in security terms, just so the US government can read their mail. This will encourage non-US software companies to fill the vacuum, and US companies will get pissed off and pull some strings in Washington. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0

Re: Denning vs. Gilmore
by Marshall Clow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Today, Monday, July 29, Dorothy Denning begins her debate vs. John Gilmore >over The Absolute Right to Privacy on Wired Online's Brain Tennis site. Do >citizens of the world have an "unalienable right" to privacy - or are there >reasons why governments ought to have access to our communications? This >debate will run daily through August 7. Follow along at >http://www.wired.com/braintennis/ > I especially like Dr. Denning's quote: >An encrypted global information infrastructure is without precedent in >world history. It allows individuals and groups, anywhere and any time, >to communicate securely and with total privacy across time and space. Now _there_ is a goal to shoot for! Minor comments: First, a historical question: What percentage of telegraph traffic was encrypted in the 1910s? A global information infrastructure (encrypted or not) is without precedent in world history, is it not? I noticed that she said "allows", not "would allow". That contradicts <<I'm not ready to accept "the cat is out of the bag.">>, doesn't it? -- Marshall Marshall Clow Aladdin Systems <mailto:mclow@mailhost2.csusm.edu> "We're not gonna take it/Never did and never will We're not gonna take it/Gonna break it, gonna shake it, let's forget it better still" -- The Who, "Tommy"

1 0

mailing list
by darryl.gittins＠edrd.dnd.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hey... how do I get on the mailing lissst....? Thanks

3 2

Re: Let's Say "No!" to Single, World Versions of Software
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:57 PM 7/30/96, Arun Mehta wrote: >At 15:13 30/07/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >> >>It is imperative that Netscape, Microsoft, Qualcomm, and the other players >>be pressured/urged/cajoled to commit to introducing strong, unescrowed >>crypto for the *domestic* versions, even if not for export versions. > >I agree. Foreign buyers will look askance at software that is >"second grade" in security terms, just so the US government can >read their mail. This will encourage non-US software companies to >fill the vacuum, and US companies will get pissed off and pull >some strings in Washington. Exactly. Having a U.S. version, without any limits on crypto and without any software key escrow (GAK), and then having a "for export" version, with keylength limits and/or mandatory registration of keys with the U.S. National Security Agency.... Well, what this would do is to basically drive sales of the "NSA" version to near zero. Between customer distaste for an NSA version, I can imagine many foreign governments not being too pleased to see this product being used by its citizens. (We've discussed this many times, since software key escrow came to our attention in 1993. Imagine the reaction of the United States government if American corporations adopted a French software product which automatically gave access to American trade secrets to DGSE ( Direction Generale de Security France Securite Exterieure), their primary spy agency, and RG (Direction de Renseignement), their economic intelligence agency. France is well-known for spying on U.S. businesses (a la the Air France case), and would no doubt be thrilled to have a "French-GAKked" program in wide use in the U.S.) This point has been raised by us many times. And, to be fair, this point is not lost on the NSA/Freeh/Denning/Gorelick crowd, I am sure. That is, they would not countenance the importation into the U.S. of "Iraq-GAKked" and "China-GAKked" programs, for example. So, what's the deal? The resolution of this quandary almost certainly lies in an "international agreement," along the lines of the various key escrow meetings which have been held (Karlsruhe in '93, Washington in '94, etc.). A "New World Order" solution, with complicated reciprocal agreements about whom the trusted key authorities might be, how nations could gain access, etc. (These relationships are too complicated for my brain to handle...how, for example, would one come to an agreement with Libya? What about Cuba, given that many of our nominal allies trade freely with Cuba and chafe when we try to get them to join our boycotts?) Such an international deal would almost certainly mean that even fully-domestic versions of software would have to be GAKked. Hence the need for us to pressure Netscape, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Novell, etc. *not* to play ball on this. This would then "marginalize" the European and Asian customers of a special "NSA-readable" version of their products, and would likely derail the whole thing. ObMartialLaw: Clinton is pushing to have new "anti-terrorist" legislation passed *this week*, according to CNN. He wants "memories to be fresh." Joe Biden wants exanded roving wiretap laws and restrictions on efforts to "circumvent" wiretaps. Feinstein wants bomb instructions banned. And so it goes. --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: Let's Say "No!" to Single, World Versions of Software
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: tcmay(a)got.net > >Such an international deal would almost certainly mean that even >fully-domestic versions of software would have to be GAKked. > >Hence the need for us to pressure Netscape, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Novell, >etc. *not* to play ball on this. This would then "marginalize" the European >and Asian customers of a special "NSA-readable" version of their products, >and would likely derail the whole thing. .......................................................... Deja-vu. Not to take away from the importance of this subject or any of the fine points which Tim has made, but it looks like it's time for the CPunk Annual August GAK Discussion on back-door deals, the NSA, and the Big Software Companies. :>) .. >Blanc >

1 0