December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

[EFG] Fwd: Ga. Internet Law Challenged
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>X-Sender: smcclain(a)pop.atl.mindspring.com >Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 16:47:07 -0400 >To: efg-action(a)ninja.techwood.org >Reply-To: efg-action(a)ninja.techwood.org > >>From: AOLNewsProfiles(a)aol.net >>Date: 96-09-24 15:25:54 EDT >> >>.c The Associated Press >> ATLANTA (AP) -- The American Civil Liberties Union and computer >>activists filed suit Tuesday challenging a new Georgia law they >>contend restricts free speech in cyberspace. >> ``Fundamental civil liberties are as important in cyberspace as >>they are in traditional contexts,'' said Ann Beeson, an ACLU >>attorney who specializes in computer law. >> Plaintiffs in the suit filed in federal court also include state >>Rep. Mitch Kaye, R-Marietta, who fought the law's passage, and >>Electronic Frontiers Georgia, a computer liberties organization. >> The law took effect July 1. It bars computer users from falsely >>identifying themselves, a provision which critics contend makes it >>illegal to use pseudonyms in electronic messages sent by computer. >>Some computer services allow users to send messages that identify >>them only by a pseudonym or account number. >> The law also makes it a crime for someone to use a company's >>trademark or symbol without permission. Critics argue that could >>make criminals of Web page owners who have established links to >>help users move quickly from their pages to those of corporate >>America. >> Robert Costner of Electronic Frontiers Georgia said that aspect >>of the law could subject his own group to penalties because its Web >>page provides a link to BellSouth's page to assist computer users >>in contacting the company about a recent rate increase. >> Rep. Don Parsons, R-Marietta, who steered the law to passage, >>has said critics are overreacting. >> The law only makes it illegal for a person to misrepresent >>himself on the network, posing as someone or something else, he >>noted. >> ``If somebody uses that type of data, such as a trade name, to >>identify themselves as some other organization, then they clearly >>are seeking to defraud,'' Parsons said last spring. >> Gov. Zell Miller signed the bill April 18 despite a warning from >>the attorney general that it was vague and a plea for a veto from >>the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, which >>called the measure an unconstitutional restraint on free speech >>rights. >> Ms. Beeson said the suit appears to be the first legal challenge >>in the country to an individual state's attempt to regulate the >>Internet. >> ``If 50 states pass 50 contradictory laws, Internet users will >>be virtually paralyzed for fear of violating one or more of those >>laws,'' she said. >> AP-NY-09-24-96 1523EDT >> Copyright 1996 The Associated Press. The information >>contained in the AP news report may not be published, >>broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without >>prior written authority of The Associated Press.

2 1

Re: We removed radikal 154 from xs4all :(
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:28 AM 9/24/96 -0400, pjb(a)ny.ubs.com wrote: > i was under the impression that germany's goal was to stop the distribution > of radikal 154 by xs4all, not by 50 mirror sites. they seem to have > accomplished their goal. do you really think that they will let a little > thing like reason stand in their way when claiming victory? Your impression was wrong. Let us just run through the sequence of events. A bunch of leftover commies publish some boring commie crap in Germany, which probably most people would have ignored. Thugs with truncheons shut them up, making large numbers of "preventative" arrests. (A "preventative" arrest is when you have done nothing illegal, let alone wrong, but they arrest you anyway.) Result: big publicity on the internet, dead silence in the "free" german press. Germany tries to shut up the internet. Result: Even bigger publicity. Sounds like a defeat for Germany to me. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

3 2

Re: We removed radikal 154 from xs4all :(
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:32 PM 9/23/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > That xs4all eventually capitulated has to be seen as a win for Germany. That the net community did not capitulate has to be seen as a loss for Germany. > They will probably now turn their sights on other sites (no pun intended), > hoping to pick off each one in turn. If they do, it will make The church of scientology look like a minor squabble. Every time one site capitulates, it will inspire two dozen others to join the fray. I joined the fight *because* xs4all had to capitulate. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

Medical Data
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the public discussions about "medical data bases" and "medical account numbers," the key issue is being missed. Namely, Why can't patients carry their _own_ medical records, and disclose what they wish to disclose to doctors and hospitals, as they see fit? Whether implemented in a high-tech version, as a "smart card," or a low-tech version, as a "dossier" (a file folder), the principle's the same. (I'll get to insurance companies in a moment.) There is little incentive (*) that I can imagine for any patient to deliberately lie on his records, as such lying usually harms himself by providing misleading information to someone who is trying to help him--I mention this because presumably one of the reasons hospitals and whatnot keep the records is fear that the records will be altered or not fully reported. Medical records appear to be a perfect example of Chaum's "selective disclosure of credentials," or even "credentials without identity." (* There is of course some incentive to lie or withold medical information if the patient deems it invasive of his privacy, or something that he does not want on records accessible to others. But in a _specific medical treatment_, for example, he gains little by denying that he had measles as a child, or that he has used IV drugs. Provided he can disclose this information without being added to a data base--e.g., by using selective disclosure of information (and not his name)--the incentives for lying are small, possibly negative.) Insurers would of course be worried about falsification of records. This can be handled in several ways. Digitally-signed statements from hospitals or test services could be required, depending on the policies of the insurers--the holder of the files, such as the patient, would be unable to fake or alter such records. Still, when one asks another party to make a "bet" about one's health, which is what insurance of course is, it's not surprising that they would want to see to independent verification of one's assertions. This is largely separable from the issue of disclosing to doctors and hospitals medical information. The comparison that is often made between credit records and medical records is flawed. Credit records are the items of data _from other people_, e.g., the persons one has borrowed from, the landlords one has rented from, etc. And with credit records, a person is often inclined to falsify or withold items (though this is also solved partly with digital signatures, though not perfectly). (There are some interesting links with object-oriented programming, with patient-objects able to maintain their own state. Not true of creditee-objects, who are not the owners of the credit worthiness judgments of others.) This could be an area where actual progress can be made. While many people, and regulators, have concerns about untraceable digital cash, it is likely that the _public_ would find it hard to buy the argument that patients being responsible for their own medical records would be a dire threat to the Republic! Thus, while carrying one's own credit record is mostly unworkable, carrying one's own medical records is completely feasible, and solves many privacy problems. --Tim May (I hope I fixed any scrambled paragraphs...my Mac crashed again (it's been crashing several times a day, what with all the various semi-incompatible versions of the Mac OS, extensions, new programs, etc., I have) and I had to recover the text of what I'd been typing from one of those dreaded--but very useful--"keystroke capture" programs.) We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

4 3

Private Information Retrieval
by Ravi Pandya 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This work looks like it might be of interest to readers of this list. Ravi --- On Tue, 24 Sep 1996 14:52:08 -0700 (PDT) Scott Dakins <sjdakins(a)cs.washington.edu> wrote: UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Seattle, Washington 98195 Department of Computer Science and Engineering Box 352350 (206) 543-1695 COLLOQUIUM SPEAKER: Benny Chor, Technion, Haifa, Israel TITLE: Private Information Retrieval DATE: Wednesday, September 25, 1996 TIME: 3:30 pm PLACE: 422 Sieg Hall HOST: Richard Karp ABSTRACT: Publicly accessible databases are an indispensable resource for retrieving up to date information. But they also pose a significant risk to the privacy of the user, since a curious database operator can follow the user's queries and infer what the user is after. Indeed, in cases where the users' intentions are to be kept secret, users are often cautious about accessing the database. It can be shown that when accessing a single database, to completely guarantee the privacy of the user, the whole database should be downloaded , namely $n$ bits should be communicated (where $n$ is the number of bits in the database). In this work, we investigate whether by replicating the database, more efficient solutions to the private retrieval problem can be obtained. We describe schemes that enable a user to access $k$ replicated copies of a database ($k\geq 2$) and privately retrieve information stored in the database. This means that each individual database gets no information on the identity of the item retrieved by the user. These schemes use the replication to gain substantial saving. In the talk, I will describe the original work on this topic (joint work with Oded Goldreich, Eyal Kushilevitz, and Madhu Sudan), as well as recent developments in this area. Refreshments to follow. Email: talk-info(a)cs.washington.edu Info: http://www.cs.washington.edu ---------------End of Original Message-----------------

2 1

Re: WHO IS MAKING A MOCKERY OF WHOM?
by Jeremy Mineweaser 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 06:15 AM 9/24/96 -0700, Sandy Sandfort wrote: >C'punks, >Time for another informal poll. > >On Mon, 23 Sep 1996, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote: >> What a joy to make a public mockery of Tim Mayo! > >Do list members think Anonymous' posts make a public mockery of >Tim May or Anonymous? Let me know whose reputation you think >is enhanced or tarnished by these posts. I'll post a summary to >the list in a week or two. First, to answer your question, I think the posts tarnish the reputation of Anonymous, although there never was much reputation to begin with. I am of the opinion that a positive reputation is earned, not given, and arguing over the matter at hand certainly doesn't help build a positive reputation. Since these annoying posts started a week or so ago, I have (for the first time ever) begun killfiling people and messages on the cp list. Right now I am killing all messages from John Anonymous MacDonald, Dmitri Vulis, and any message in the "daily ... regarding TCM" thread(s). I hope this madness can end, so we can get back to more normal traffic levels on the list. If anything good can come of this, it's that more people (myself included) will begin to use filtering tools to improve the perceived S/N ratio of the list. I am working on making a Eudora Pro plugin that creates and maintains a reputation system, which can then be tailored to modify incoming mail as desired, removing irrelevant paragraphs, summarizing, all kinds of things. Initially it will just keep an index score for each user representing the quality of the content which they author, but I have lots of things I hope to add to it. Good luck with the survey, Jeremy --- Jeremy L. Mineweaser | GCS/E d->-- s:- a--- C++(+++)$ ULC++(++++)>$ P+>++$ gt4436c(a)prism.gatech.edu | L+>++ E-(---) W++ N+ !o-- K+>++ w+(++++) O- M-- | V-(--) PS+(--) PE++ Y++>$ PGP++>+++$ t+() 5 X+ R+() *ai*vr*vx*crypto* | tv(+) b++>+++ DI+(++) D+ G++ e>+++ h-() r-@ !y-

1 0

The daily word of caution regarding Timmy May
by nobody＠zifi.genetics.utah.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May studied yoga back-streching exercises for five years so he could blow himself (nobody else will).

1 0

Re: Portal remailer shutting down
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:03 PM 9/24/96, Hal wrote: >The ISP which I have used for over five years, portal.com, is going >out of business at the end of this month (September, 1996). This means >that my remailer at hfinney(a)shell.portal.com will cease operations. >I had asked that it be removed from the remailer lists a few weeks ago >due to some problems, so hopefully not many people have been using it >lately. But now it will go away for good. > >This remailer has been in operation since the fall of 1991. I believe it ^^^^^^^^^^^^ You obviously mean "fall of 1992." Anyway, congratulations on all of your work back then (in 1992 :-)), and for running it for so long. I, too, was a Portalite, from 1988-1992 (when I switched to Netcom, which offered a local POP (point of presence) in Santa Cruz). Portal was the first major ISP to offer accounts to non-academic users. They were also heavily used by those who'd signed up with "PC-Pursuit," a flat-rate phone service which made it feasible to dial-in to Portal from anywhere in the country. When the plug was pulled on PC-Pursuit, circa mid-89, the prospects for Portal dimmed as well. (My own usage dropped dramatically when PC-Pursuit was canned, as dialing-in to Portal directly was costing me $6-10 an hour, depending on the time of day. Once I got on with Netcom, in 1992, I was able to join various mailing lists, including the Extropians list and of course the Cypherpunks list.) I haven't been following the fortunes of Portal for a couple of years, but its relative absence from the playing field of Netcom, Best, Earthlink, etc. has been pretty noticeable. So I can't say I'm surprised it's going away. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

The Netsurfer of Penzance
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Priority: normal Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 10:31:58 PST Reply-To: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> Sender: Law & Policy of Computer Communications <CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM> From: Eugene Volokh <VOLOKH(a)LAW.UCLA.EDU> Organization: UCLA School of Law Subject: The Netsurfer of Penzance To: CYBERIA-L(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- From: "Thomas P. Vogl" <tvogl(a)wo.erim.org> The Newbie's Song (Based on the Major General's song from "The Pirates of Penzance", Gilbert & Sullivan). I am the very model of a Usenet individual, I've information meaningless and ultimately trivial, I know the basic elements of alien biology, And all the hidden secrets of the Church of Scientology, I've seen "The Wrath of Khan" and every Star Trek film that followed it, I moan about my Servicecard and how the cash till swallowed it, About the laws on handguns I am sending off a counterblast, With many cheerful facts about the way you can MAKE MONEY FAST! ALL: With many cheerful etc. I'll tell you why the Japanese are taking over Panama, And why the USA is still a better place than Canada, In short, in matters meaningless and ultimately trivial, I am the very model of a Usenet individual. ALL: In short, in matters meaningless and ultimately trivial, He is the very model of a Usenet individual. I post in alt.revisionism lies about the Holocaust, I cut my .sig to twenty lines, I didn't want to, I was forced, I really can't believe the "Good Times" virus to be mythical, And Clinton's raising taxes which is, frankly, bloody typical, I've upset several people on alt.flame, I really don't know how, And sent a thousand business cards to Mr. and Mrs. Shergold now, I have a very poor grip of political geography, And absolutely no involvement (yet!) in child pornography, ALL: And absolutely no, etc. I've paid two-fifty dollars for the Nieman-Marcus recipe, And told the Spanish tourist's tale about the toothbrush pessary, In short, in matters meaningless and ultimately trivial, I am the very model of a Usenet individual. ALL: In short, in matters meaningless and ultimately trivial, He is the very model of a Usenet individual. In fact, when I know what is meant by "binary" and "FTP", When I know how to decode porno JPEGs from a .uue, When I can handle HTML, Telnet, mail and IRC, And when I know the words initialized to form "http", When I have learnt what topics are acceptable in talk.bizarre, When I know more of Usenet than the tailpipe of a motor-car, In short, when I've a smattering of elementary netiquette, You'll say a better individual has never surfed the Net. ALL: You'll say a better individual, etc. For my technical experience, although I claim to know it all Could barely serve to run the installation disk from AOL; But still, in matters meaningless and ultimately trivial, I am the very model of a Usenet individual. ALL: But still, in matters meaningless and ultimately trivial, He is the very model of a Usenet individual. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Harry Erwin, Internet: herwin(a)gmu.edu, Web Page: http://osf1.gmu.edu/~herwin 49 year old PhD student in computational neuroscience ("how bats do it" 8) and lecturer for CS 211 (data structures and advanced C++) -- Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law --- end forwarded text ----------------- 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

Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>And the ITARs are only executive orders, no? Not laws, right? I'm curious >as to why they're considered valid. Anyone know? They're administrative regulations. Legislative bodies (like Congress and state legislatures) can delegate some of their legislative authority to executive agencies (like the Forest Service or the State Dept) to make rules which have the force of law. This is done because legislatures don't have time to write all of the laws that bureaucrats think ought to be written - so the legislature says "Fine, write your own damn laws." Legislatures don't want to bother with deciding where you can build a fire on federal lands or exactly how close you can fly to an airport if you're not taking off or landing or what happens to undeliverable mail at the Post Office. So legislatures give some of their lawmaking power to the agencies that are in a position to see what needs to be regulated. The delegation of power is limited by superior law (e.g., statutes written by the legislature) and the regulatory duties of the agency (such that the Forest Service can't write regs for the FAA, etc.) and by the grant of power itself. This sounds like cops making up their own laws - and it is, but they have to act like legislatures when they do it. This means that they must (generally) publish proposed regs, accept comments, ignore them, and then publish final regulations. Agencies can't change the regs on a daily or a case-by-case basis, or change them without making the changes public. (But "public" means "buried somewhere in the Federal Register".) And that's what the ITAR is - a body of administrative law developed by the executive branch pursuant to a grant of power from Congress. (e.g., 22 USC 2778(a)(1), ". . . The President is authorized to designate those items which shall be considered as defense articles and defense services for the purposes of this section and to promulgate regulations for the import and export of such articles and services. The items so designated shall constitute the United States Munitions List.") It is subject to review by the courts just like the product of Congress itself; and an agency can't do something Congress can't do, like write an unconstitutional law. (Which is not to say that I agree with the inclusion of crypto on the list, or even the idea of "export controls", but I've seen the argument that "ITAR is not a real law so none of this matters" float across the list a few times and it's not realistic. Whether or not a given individual likes the idea of administrative rulemaking, it's clear that the courts and the government think that it's real, and will put people in jail for violating administrative regs.) -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

5 4