December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE?
by stig＠hackvan.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 22:48:23 +0200 (MET DST) > From: Alex de Joode <usura(a)replay.com> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE? > Newsgroups: list.cypherpunks > > [..] > : "Ecash" is a registered trademark of DigiCash. It is registered > : with the Benelux trademark office and the United States > : trademark office. I believe that it is considered unwise to use > : minor variations on trademarked names, but I'm not an > : intellectual property rights lawyer. > > The Benelux (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) trademark laws > don't allow for slight variations, certainly not if there is a > change that people get confused, it is very very likey that the > judges of the benelux trademark court will decide that > ecash and e-cash are just to simular, and will thus confuse the > public. (art 5 lid 1 BMW) > > btw: I'm surprised DigiCash didn't file for a European Trademark, > but opted for Benelux and US protection. Perhaps this has already been voiced on the main list (I get a filtered helping or two of cypherpunks), but *I'm* surprised that such a generic name as 'Ecash' was granted trademark status anywhere. It's like giving Microsoft a trademark on the term 'Email'... It's nuts! Was the term ecash not in use before DigiCash showed up on the scene? Stig

1 0

Re: How I Would Ban Strong Crypto in the U.S.
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:29 PM 7/16/96, Declan McCullagh wrote: >(Note that Leahy is only occasionally a friend of the Net. His original >crypto bill had troubling additional criminal penalties; he shepharded >Digital Telephony through Congress; he is a co-sponsor of the vile >copyright bill pending right now. In sum, he'd hurt the Net more than help >it. This becomes a problem when netizens hold him up as an champion of our >freedoms -- and then when DT II comes along his fellow senators think it's >okay to vote for it 'cuz Mr. Net, Leahy, is a cosponsor.) By the way, I certainly don't hold him up as a champion of views I can support; I vividly recall his role in the disastrous DT Act. >My rebuttal to Gorelick's fantasy is: well, what about Japan, where the >country's constitution forbids wiretapping? Many countries have constitutions which say fine things, even though the reality is quite different. Some even constitutions which are in many ways better than the U.S. version...until of course the reality on the street is taken into account. Japan has an active SIGINT capability, called Chobetsu, directed domestically at U.S. installations (a la NSA's own SIGINT facility at Misawa AFB) and at domestic companies. Whatever their constitution may say, intercepts are used. Chip companies with facilities in Japan communicate with their facilities with the expectation that MITI and Chobetsu are making all attempts to intercept useful economic intelligence. Information on the intelligence agencies of various countries may be found in the standard reference by Jeffery Richelson, or on the Web at such URLs as http://www.onestep.com/milnet/iagency.htm Here is one entry for Chobetsu: Chobetsu Ground Self-Defense Forces Investigation Japan Division, Second Section, Annex Chamber In short, I don't believe that a New Crypto World Order, with buy-ins already apparent from most European and Asian countries, will be deterred by Japan's nominal promise in its constitution not to wiretap. As a friend of mine who spent the last nine years working for an American chip company in Tsukuba and Tokyo puts it, "Japan is a fucking police state." --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

US govt claims to want to combat "computer terrorism"
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Somehow, I suspect that their efforts will A: not include any non-GAKed cryptography involvement, and probably minimal GAKed cryptography - less chance of someone using superencryption in a hard-to-detect fashion. I also suspect that they'll be cutting down on anonymnity, or at least trying to. Notice the link to an almost completely unrelated incident, namely the Oklahoma City bombing. -Allen > _ Wednesday July 17 1:28 PM EDT _ >U.S. urges "Manhattan Project" for cyber security > WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration is urged U.S. industry to join > in a sweeping new drive to protect computer networks and other modern > lifelines from attack by terrorists and others. [... Jamie Gorelick, or whatever her name is (yes, the pro-GAKing one), said:] > "What we need, then, is the equivalent of the 'Manhattan Project' > for infrastructure protection, a cooperative venture between the > government and private sector to put our best minds together to come > up with workable solutions to one of our most difficult > challenges," she told the Governmental Affairs permanent > subcommittee on investigations. > President Clinton set the stage for such a blitz Monday with an > executive order setting up a blue-ribbon panel that will recommend > measures to safeguard such lifelines as telecommunications, power > systems, water supply, and gas and oil storage and transportation. The > panel is to be chaired by a presidential appointee drawn from the > private sector and will include representatives from government and > industry. [...] > The administration began to focus on the issue after the April 19, > 1995, bombing that killed 168 people in an Oklahoma City federal > office building. > Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved

1 0

Hettinga Rants in WiReD...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now if they'll send me the check... :-) About two months ago, I wrote an 'Idees Fortes' piece for Wired. It's about digital bearer bonds. If I remember the title, it's something like "The Internet as Buttonwood Tree". You guys have heard most of it from me before. Thus, as usual, it is, again, TiReD... People tell me it's in the latest issue, which is out now, but I haven't gone looking for it on the newstand yet. Maybe they'll send me a clipping. With the check. Did I tell you they haven't sent the check. That's a recurring problem with me lately... Maybe I should update my non-repudiation rant... You shoulda seen the first version. Or, maybe you did... I can't remember. The editor said something about it being too out there, or something like that. For WiReD?... ;-) It's late. I'm going to sleep. Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0

The Orchid Ring of (Probable) Child Pornographers
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:29 AM 7/17/96, John Young wrote: > "16 Indicted On Charges Of Internet Pornography." > > Exon-Reno-ing into one of the more distant frontiers of > sexual crime, a Federal grand jury charged 16 people in > the US and abroad with joining in a pornography ring. > Its members shared homemade pictures, recounted their > sexual experiences with children and even chatted > electronically as two of the men molested a 10-year-old > girl. The case appeared likely to heighten concerns > about the spread of child pornography over the Internet. This incident happened very near me, in Greenfield, California, near Salinas. (No, I was not involved!) Apparently the "Orchid Ring" (or "Orchid Club") was using a password-protected system of some sort, according to an article in today's "Mercury News." The Internet was used, but I don't know the details (e.g., whether IRC was used, ordinary e-mail, or some soft of "intranet" linking the participants). ObList Relevance: Even if they were not using PGP or the like, it is not a leap to imagine the usefullness of crypto for such intranets. It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds. BTW, from the reports it appears likely that these were indeed "child pornographers," not simple violators of the CDA. That is, full-fledged Horsemen of the Infocalypse. As such, potentially powerful ammunition for those who would like restrictions placed on crypto. (Especially if it turns out that law enforcement learned of the Orchid Ring through non-encrypted communications.) --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: New Infowarfare Panel
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:01 PM 7/17/96, Dave Banisar wrote: >If y'all have heard, Clinton signed an executive order 2 days ago creating a >new panel to examine how to "protect" "critical" computer systems. The panel >will be made of of the usual suspects with a non-govt person ($5.00 says it >will be someone from one of those wonderfully independant companies like SAIC, >MITRETEC, EDS, E-Systems). > >Needless to say, it looks an awful lot like NSDD-145 all over again with the >panel recommending changes to the law to allo for greater coordination of LE, >intell for govt computers and god knows what for non-govt computers. > >Anyway, the directive is now up on our site at >http://www.epic.org/security/infowar/eo_cip.html Thanks. It's certainly beginning to look like "infowar" is the new funding/legislation fount....I suggest it be given honorary status as a "Horseman." Winn Schwartau is running conferences, is talking about the imminent danger of the nation's computer networks being knocked out (paraphrasing his latest "Wired" item: "imagine your ATM network being knocked out and people being unable to gain access to their money"). Schwartau is predicting/advocating a "fifth branch" of the military to deal with the this threat. A cyberforce, as it were. Color me skeptical, but I see this all as a lot of hype and fear-mongering. Folks in the Pentagon, FBI, and NSA probably see it as a way to get more funding, Folks in the consulting business probably see it as a way to crank up the seminar prices and increase the number and frequency of "Information Warfare" workshops and seminars. And the anti-terrorism folks will use it to tighten up. (Of course, tonight's explosion of the TWA 800 looks to be a bomb, from all indications...this _could_ be the "Oklahoma II" incident that will trigger more draconian surveillance legislation. Just a concern I have.) --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."

5 6

Re: TLA abuse (?) [non-crypto, mostly]
by Clay Olbon II 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

David K. Merriman <merriman(a)amaonline.com> wrote: >Officer (sorry, don't recall his rank) Hughes says *he* thinks the models >could conceivably be 18; a judge they showed it to said _she_ thought >(personal opinion) younger. Hence, the forwarding to FBI for quasi-official >determination. Child pornography is illegal, however I don't believe that pictures of nekkid children are always considered to be child pornography (however much small-minded twirps want you to believe that they are). I know several "fundamentalists" who decry what our society has sunk to with images such as David's posted on the net for all to see. I take the opposing view, decrying the idiocy of declaring parts of our own bodies to be obscene. Unfortunately I don't see victory any time soon. Clay *************************************************************************** Clay Olbon II * Clay.Olbon(a)dynetics.com Systems Engineer * PGP262 public key on web page Dynetics, Inc. * http://www.msen.com/~olbon/olbon.html ***************************************************************** TANSTAAFL

2 1

Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE?
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In article <m0ugN8o-000HEEC(a)JATO.hackvan.com> Stig wrote: : > Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 22:48:23 +0200 (MET DST) : > From: Alex de Joode <usura(a)replay.com> : > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com : > Subject: Re: #E-CASH: PRODUCT OR SERVICE? : > Newsgroups: list.cypherpunks : > : > [..] : > : "Ecash" is a registered trademark of DigiCash. It is registered : > : with the Benelux trademark office and the United States : > : trademark office. I believe that it is considered unwise to use : > : minor variations on trademarked names, but I'm not an : > : intellectual property rights lawyer. : > : > The Benelux (Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg) trademark laws : > don't allow for slight variations, certainly not if there is a : > change that people get confused, it is very very likey that the : > judges of the benelux trademark court will decide that : > ecash and e-cash are just to simular, and will thus confuse the : > public. (art 5 lid 1 BMW) : > : > btw: I'm surprised DigiCash didn't file for a European Trademark, : > but opted for Benelux and US protection. : Perhaps this has already been voiced on the main list (I get a filtered : helping or two of cypherpunks), but *I'm* surprised that such a generic name : as 'Ecash' was granted trademark status anywhere. : It's like giving Microsoft a trademark on the term 'Email'... It's nuts! : Was the term ecash not in use before DigiCash showed up on the scene? Untill januari 1st 1996 you could trademark anything in The Benelux. A bank (ABM*AMRO) has a trademark on 'the bank'; they essentially upgraded a generic name into a trademark, but the recent changes made that impossible since the Benelux Trademark Buro has to check if a name is a generic name and they now have the power to refuse a registration. bEST Regards, -- -AJ-

2 1

overseas PGPfone and Netscape
by Jean-Paul Kroepfli 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've seen some threads about (1) the new PGPfone, (2) the new US-version of Netscape and leakage. So my question: [Important] Do you know some non-US URL with the latest version of PGPfone for Win? (I monitored the usual European repositories quasi day to day, but it was always the old version) [Less important] Ibid. for the new US-Netscape (with full 128-SSL) (I suppose there is a copyright problem for such a -hum- mirroring) Best regards, Jean-Paul ~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~- Jean-Paul et Micheline Kroepfli (our son: Nicolas and daughter: Celine) eMail: JeanPaul.Kroepfli(a)utopia.fnet.fr Also Compuserve and MSNetwork Phone: +33 81 55 52 59 (F) PostMail: F-25640 Breconchaux (France) or: +41 21 843 27 36 (CH) or: CP 138, CH-1337 Vallorbe Fax: +33 81 55 52 62 (Switzerland) Zephyr(r) : InterNet Communication and Commerce, Security and Cryptography consulting PGP Fingerprint : 19 FB 67 EA 20 70 53 89 AF B2 5C 7F 02 1F CA 8F "The InterNet is the most open standard since air for breathing"

7 10

Re: "address verification databases"? (was: Netscape download...)
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:47 AM 7/18/96 -0700, Jeff Weinstein wrote: > Our database was obtained from American Business Information. >They make those CDROMs with 11 million business names and addresses, >and other such products. There is a link to their web page from our >US download page. > Our verification software does not check that the person whose name >is entered in the form lives at the address entered in the form. >We do verify some parts of the information entered. Things like >is the state code one of the 50 states, does the zip code match >the state, etc. (NOTE - these may not be the exact checks implemented >currently. I have not examined the code myself, but these are the >types of checks being done.) I got my copy after entering my accomodation address in New York City so the address part of the control mechanism is not a problem. DCF

1 0