December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Internal Passports
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:30 AM 8/1/96, Lucky Green wrote: >At 11:12 7/31/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >>Most Central European countries have both privacy commissioners and legal >>requirements that everyone register their addresses with the police. I'll >>do without the former if I can also avoid the latter. > >I remember a time when Privacy Commissioners were a new thing. Their >primary purpose seemed to be to sanction government access to (and keeping >of) large databases on the activities of the population. Their secondary >purpose was to prevent the private sector competition from doing the same. >Eliminating access to such data by the individual in the process. I'm with Duncan and Lucky on this one. Nations with a "Privacy Ombudsman" are almost always nations with extensive files on individuals, their habits, and their political activities. Having a "Privacy Ombudsman" is a bone thrown to the proles. I suspect a police state like Singapore has such a person. And related to the "photo I.D." discussion, most of these nations demand that passports be left at hotel desks when checking in. (At least they did when I spent 6 weeks travelling through Europe in 1983.) Perhaps the theory is that this stops people from running out on their bills, though credit cards do the same thing (*). However, the police reportedly inspect these passports and enter them into data bases to track movements. (* As the credit card companies increase their cooperation with law enforcement, a la the links between FinCEN and the Big Three credit reporters, the passports will no longer be necessary, and the process of tracking movements can be done just with the credit cards. Those without credit cards...well, they'll think of something.) Question (a la "Wired"): "When will the United States introduce an internal passport?" May: "2005, but they won't call it that." --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."

3 2

Welcome Back
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:51 AM 8/1/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >Uh oh. The hell with the FAA. What about the Disney people? Michael >Eisner may sent Goofy to lean on you! > >EBD >No longer a federal prosecutor! Welcome back. I missed your posts. Do you have an honest job or are you still taking the King's Shilling? DCF

2 1

Re: A Libertine Question
by Vinnie Moscaritolo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think Bob Dole understands the needs for privacy rights for animals.. the following verbatim account of a segment of a Bob Dole appearance a week or so ago at a cotton cooperative in Bakersfield, California "My wife was here six days last week, and she'll be back next week, and she does an outstanding job. And when I'm elected, she will not be in charge of health care. Don't worry about it. Or in charge of anything else. (Muffled crowd gasp.) I didn't say that. It did sort of go through my mind. But she may have a little blood bank in the White House. But that's all right. We need it. It doesn't cost you anything. These days, it's not all you give at the White House - your blood. You have to give your file. I keep wondering if mine's down there. Or my dog. I got a dog named Leader. I'm not certain they've got a file on Leader. He's a schnauzer. I think he's been cleaned. We've had him checked by the vet but not by the FBI or the White House. He may be suspect, but in any event, we'll get into that later. Animal rights or something of that kind. But this is a very serious election." Vinnie Moscaritolo "Law - Samoan Style" http://www.vmeng.com/vinnie/ Fingerprint: 4FA3298150E404F2782501876EA2146A

1 0

IPSEC for Linux
by ichudov＠galaxy.galstar.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, Is there an implementation of IPSEC for Linux? Thanks, - Igor.

1 0

Re: CDT Policy Post 2.29 - Administration, Congress Propose Sweeping Anti-Terrorism Initiatives
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:03 AM 8/1/96 -0400, Bob Palacios wrote: > The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 29 > CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 29 August 1, 1996 >I. NEW THREATS TO ENCRYPTION, OPPOSITION TO THE PRO-CODE BILL >The Administration's outline contains the following statement on encryption: > "* Encryption -- We will seek legislation to strengthen our ability to > prevent terrorists from coming into the possession of the technology > to encrypt their communications and data so that they are beyond the > reach of law enforcement. We oppose legislation that would eliminate > current export barriers and encouraging the proliferation of encryption > which blocks appropriate access to protect public safety and the > national security." > >While no specific legislative language has yet been proposed, this >represents the first statement by the Administration that they will seek >legislation to further restrict encryption. Even more troubling, the >Administration is clearly attempting to use the recent suspected terrorist >incidents to push for a new and more restrictive encryption policy. Even though it may be obvious to the crypto-savvy people in CP, since this press release is directed at a somewhat wider audience it would be useful to point out that none of these recent terrorist incidents involved encryption at all. >The Administration's attempt to leverage >the public's concern about terrorism to block passage of the Pro-CODE bill >is disturbing, and poses a significant threat to privacy and security on the >Internet. Same point. Unless you mention that encryption wasn't a factor at all, you risk leaving the (unsophisticated) reader with the implication that there was, indeed, some crypto angle to these incidents. Like it or not, that's the way public discourse seems to be done these days: Unless a point is specifically challenged, implicitly it is deemed ceded to the claimant. Sure, Clinton did not actually claim that encryption was a factor, but it was there by implication, and the average citizen seeing his proposals would come to that conclusion. Denying this specifically, you'd be "points ahead" and would be in a better position to shut down those trying to restrict encryption. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Blurring the Chains of Causation
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

An unusual thread name, "Blurring the Chains of Causation." What I mean is this: - the U.S. legal system has been blurring, or confusing, the chain of cause-and-effect in crimes - Example: allowing suits by insurance companies and states against tobacco companies. A smoker gets cancer by his actions, and it used to be that this was his action, his responsibility. Now, we hold tobacco companies liable, and perhaps will someday hold executives of these companies criminally liable. (This for a product which is not illegal, mind you.) (There are a bunch of related examples. "Civil liability" is a major way this blurring is happening. Gun manufacturers being sued for crimes committed with their guns, ladder makers sued by the families of criminals who leaned ladders up against electrified fences, and so on. How long before a bookstore is sued for "allowing" a book to be bought by someone who later is "inspired" to commit a crime--actually, John Grisham ("The Firm") is involved in a lawsuit against Oliver Stone for his film, "Natural Born Killers," which Grisham claims "inspired" a murder. This has got to stop, in my opinion.) - "They made me do it" defenses. Hostess Twinkies are implicated in the brutal murder of San Francisco's mayor and a city councilman. Childhood abuse is exculpatory in other cases. Psychobabblers blather about what caused people to behave as they did. A mass murderer says pornography made him kill 25 women. A lawyer claims his client's son committed suicide after listening to heavy metal music. And so it goes. This blurring has links to cryptography, bomb-making instructions on the Net, availability of porn on the Net, and many other things. To cut to the chase: - a librarian who "allows" a person to check out "The Anarchist Cookbook" is *not* causing a crime, though much of the rhetoric one hears is otherwise. - the _author_ of that book (Powell, allegedly) is *also* not causing a crime. - the _publishers_ of that book (Lyle Stuart, as I recall--my copy is not handy) also have not committed any crime To make things clear, some of the language being proposed in the rush-to-law about anti-terrorism, wiretapping, anti-encryption, etc. As Sen. Feinstein puts it, "We hope we can wrap up the repeal of the Bill of Rights and have it on President Clinton's desk before the close of the Olympics on Sunday." :-( - if I _advocate_ strong crytography, avoidance of taxes, undermining of government power, crypto anarchy, etc., I have not committed any crime (Caveat: advocating the violent overthrow of the U.S. government apparently is a crime, as are certain forms of conspiracy, a la RICO, tax evasion, etc.) - if I _use_ strong cryptography, I have not committed any crime, ipso facto, nor am I necessarily conspiring to commit any crime And so on. Many of the proposed restrictions seek to further blur this chain of causation, by making someone who provides access to materials which _may_ later be used in a crime, or which may "inspire" someone to crime, a kind of criminal. The trend picked up steam with the "deep pockets" precedents in the 70s (*), was fed by the blame-passing psychobabble of the same decade, and has now reached its present state by a willingness of the courts to hear such cases. People who actually commit real crimes are the criminals, not those who sold them Hostess Twinkies without first checking their blood sugar level. Not those who let a library patron look at a "dangerous" book. And not those who provided strong cryptographic tools which _might_ be used by terrorists, pedophiles, and money launderers. --Tim May (* "deep pockets" -- If there are N parties in a lawsuit, and one of them shares only 5% of the (putative) blame but has 95% of the overall assets, go after the party with the "deepest pockets." This forced Cessna and Piper, the leading light aircraft firms at one time, to stop selling light aircraft. The example with Oliver Stone being sued is a clear case of this.) 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: algorithms for verifying U.S. IP address ...
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ernest Hua (hua(a)chromatic.com) wrote: : How does one verify that an IP address is coming from a U.S. site? : How do most FTP site (e.g. those which carry crypto) determine the : origins of a connection? What's the use ? It makes it only nominally more difficult to access an US crypto site, one needs first to esthablish an US beachhead ie. open an US account, and ftp the eleet crypto warez using the newly created US account as an intermediary. So the next step will be a tag that a user is an 'alien' ? bEST Regards, -- Alex de Joode | Replay IP Service & Web DZign -- The Netherlands usura(a)replay.com | http://www.replay.com mailto:info@replay.com

1 0

A funny thing happend to my data on the way to the bank
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- The Prime Minister's Social Security Number Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's US Social Security Number is 172-42-6111, according to the Boston Consulting Group in Massachusetts, which employed Netanyahu for about one-year during 1979-80.=20 The number indicated by the marketing firm contradicts information contained in a credit report by the US federally-regulated Transunion Company, pulled from company files during the first days of July. According to that report, Netanyahu and an American named John J. Sullivan both used Social Security number 020-36-4537. Questions were raised in the reports as to whether Netanyahu had attempted to create a false identity or had used a number which was not his. Publication of the credit report findings, and later reports indicating that Netanyahu's name had suddenly been deleted from Transunion's files, raised additional questions about possible computer break-ins into the company's records. Netanyahu aides have repeatedly claimed that the prime minister does not remember his number. In order to untangle Netanyahu from the issue, aides three weeks ago, asked US officials to provide his number. According to the Prime Minister's Office, that request has yet to be answered. (Jerusalem Post e-mail Edition..7/31.. heather(a)jpost.co.il) =20

2 1

[off-topic] domain name server needed
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone have access to a DNS server that they can use to list a very small number of start of authority records for me for a minor experiment? [This message may have been dictated with Dragon Dictate 2.01. Please be alert for unintentional word substitutions.] A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's hot here! And humid!

1 0

Attempted balance... too far on the security side
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mixed messages, definitely. For one thing, people appear not to be realizing that even with terrorism, trains and airplanes are still safer per passenger mile than automobile. Driving people to drive more (no pun intended) isn't going to save any lives. Besides which, if I've got an emergency flight to catch, I may be willing to take the risk. Is there some reason that all flights must be held to the same security, so long as everyone getting on knows what level of security that is? Moreover, the suggestion of greater humint bears with it infiltration (and possible agent procacateurship of) any group that the government doesn't like. -Allen >America's dilemma: Balancing security and an open society > _(c) Copyright 1996 Nando.net_ > Associated Press > WASHINGTON -- after the bombing at the olympics and the loss of twa > flight 800, americans grappled sunday with how to maintain security in > a society that prizes individual liberty above all. > Travelers said they would accept longer delays for better baggage > checks and politicians reopened debate over thorny provisions cut from > an antiterrorism bill. But many weighed the desire for safety against > the pleasures of an open society. > "We must never accept as a fact of life that we will have to live with > terrorism," said Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick. "We must and > will come up with the tools to prevent these events." > But Gorelick conceded there may be a price. "Balancing the competing > interests in openness and security will be something that will be a > subject for all of us for many years to come," she told NBC's "Meet > the Press." [...] > Joyce Lee, catching a train home to Newark, Del., from Washington's > Union Station on Sunday, said she's "a little leery about travel these > days." > "You don't know when you're going to get it. A bomb could go off > anywhere, anytime," she said. "I would definitely be willing to go > through more security because safety and having to wait a few extra > minutes is worth it." > Security consultants predicted public pressure would force greater > restrictions in public places and increased scrutiny at airports. But > others noted that security was tight at the Olympics before the > bombing, and warned that adopting a police-state mentality would > represent defeat. > "I don't want to see the terrorists win by, in effect, revoking our > Constitution," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said on Fox's "News Sunday." > A terrorist can always move on to the next target. If airports are > sealed, will train stations be safe? How about movie theaters? > "Ultimately the question is, can you protect perfectly in public > places?" said Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell. "And the answer is no." [...] > The antiterrorism bill that Clinton signed earlier this year applied > the death penalty to terrorism convictions and provided $1 billion for > law enforcement to fight terrorists. > But a provision to allow the FBI to wiretap all phones used by a > suspected terrorist was dropped and one requiring explosives > manufacturers to insert chemical tracers in their products was > weakened. > Gingrich said Sunday that he was willing to revisit those issues, but > that a proposal to allow police to conduct so-called "roving wiretaps" > was too great an intrusion of privacy. > "Our system is designed to go slowly, frankly, to protect freedoms," > he said on "Meet the Press." > Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., said that despite the recent incidents, the Cold > War's end has produced a period of relative safety for the United > States. [...] > But he warned that unless steps were taken to block terrorists from > obtaining weapons-grade uranium or chemical weapons, Americans might > soon be longing for the days of the simple pipe bomb. > The key to fighting terrorism, he said, was increasing the United > States' ability to gather human intelligence -- information often > gathered covertly by infiltrating terrorist groups or spying on their > sponsors.

1 0