December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Brain Tennis with Dorthy
by David K. Merriman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 11:59 AM 08/1/96 -0400, Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> wrote: >I'm following the Brain Tennis Match between Dorothy Denning and John >Gilmore on encryption and the right to absolute privacy on Hot Wired >(http://www.hotwired.com/braintennis/96/31/index0a.html) > >Were I a participant in this exercise, I would lob the following to Dorothy: > ... <good questions excised> ... One might wonder how Dorothy's opinions about privacy et al would change were it *her* communications/privacy/person at risk (be it through torture, GAK, etc.). Were a government - duly elected - to come into power similar to that in 30's Germany or 70's Viet Nam, so that intellectuals or the educated became the targets of oppression, would she be as adamant about the perceived "rights" of Government to intrude in her private life, monitor her communications, and so on? Inquiring minds want to know.... :-) Dave Merriman -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMgBe+MVrTvyYOzAZAQHoygP/ZeEn00d+uAuJXp29igeMTPe0U8muD3uy tIZItV2e05D9VLaCNdzZKiK9pqGsjA6VzB1sUd8uRUtPu0GKVGrylgjuA/QoK/m6 xOMGLNcvPZVhVbqGMCkFXwR6U5KifMd1mAb14Au25MR7hpfzpCwMBQZ5y495AhRx utMueAGDmIo= =OARQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Internal Passports
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike McNally wrote: >That reminds me: I thumbed through BiBi's terrorism book (the one D.S. >certified as prerequisite reading for particpation in intelligent >discussions about something-or-other) at B&N the other day. It's a >pretty thin book. Most of it seems to be about the rise of the Moslem >Menace and how the Sultan's hordes will soon be upon us all. The last >chapter outlines all the "necessary measures" governments must take >to stamp out the wildfire of terrorism. Same old same old, mostly, >like allowing suspects to be held without charges, allowing warrantless >searches (I think), thorough weapon registration, and so on. The last >one (or next-to-last; I think the last one is "brainwash the populace >into thinking this is all a good idea") is about establishing a >periodic "civil liberties review panel". > >Yeah right. OK. But I sure would like to have an automatic weapon for self/home/"national" defense w/o going through a tremendous amount of B.S. (as Israelis are excused from). I believe that you Texans and we Arizonans have the privilege; in "urban" states, where the need truly is, good luck. Also, I don't know what your experience in the Middle East is. Me, I worked in Iran and exited just before the Jan. '79 "revolution". Menace & murder. You *really* have no idea. Hint: I'm alive. If you still (I don't know your age) think that humans are all the same, but we juss gots diffrunt colors 'n' cultures, I *strongly* recommend an extended period of travel to the third world. In all sincerity, Dave

1 0

ALERT: Congress rushing to pass surveillance plan! Call now! (8/1/96)
by Voters Telecommunications Watch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

====================================================================== ____ _____ ____ ___ _ _____ ____ _____ | _ \| ____| _ \ / _ \| | | ____| _ \_ _| CONGRESS RUSHING TO | |_) | _| | | | | | |_| | | | _| | |_) || | ENACT SURVEILLANCE | _ <| |___| |_| | | _ | |___| |___| _ < | | LEGISLATION. CALL |_| \_\_____|____/ |_| |_|_____|_____|_| \_\|_| CONGRESS NOW! 8/1/96 REPOST THIS ALERT WHERE APPROPRIATE DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE AFTER AUGUST 7, 1996 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of contents Introduction What you can do now Background Participating organizations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- INTRODUCTION Late Wednesday, Congress and the Clinton Administration reached a preliminary agreement on a sweeping new surveillance initiative. The President and several Congressional leaders are pushing for a vote on the measure BEFORE CONGRESS RECESSES ON AUGUST 2. If enacted, parts of the proposal would dramatically impact privacy and security on the Internet and other advanced communications technologies. Of particular concern are provisions which: 1. Allows law enforcement to wiretap "suspected terrorists" for up to 48 hours BEFORE obtaining a court order 2. Provide funding for the Digital Telephony Proposal without any public accountability over how the FBI spends the funds Other provisions are also circulating that would: 3. Threaten to impose new restrictions on encryption technologies 4. Seek to criminalize the distribution of 'bomb-making' information on the Internet that is legal in print. Congress needs to hear from you. Congress will rush through the passage of massive new surveillance plans with privacy risks unless you show them there is support for slow, deliberate, reasoned thought on the issue. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW CALL KEY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IMMEDIATELY! NO LATER THAN FRIDAY (8/2/96) Please contact as many elected officials on the list below as you can. Urge them to "go slow" and carefully consider the impact these surveillance proposals will have on the privacy and security of all Internet users. Tell them while you appreciate their concern about combating terrorism, the measures being proposed have many potential side effects which must be carefully considered. 1. Call the key members of Congress below and ask them to "go slow" and examine the issues before rushing into changing the delicate balance of law enforcement surveillance and the public. 2. If you are at a loss for words, use the following sample communique: SAMPLE COMMUNIQUE Dear _________, Please do not rush the passage of counter terrorism legislation; I'm concerned that Congress is rushing without carefully considering the implications of privacy. I'm from <city, state>. Thanks, <click> You should call the following members of Congress because they are steering this legislation and need to hear there is support for slow, deliberate, thoughtful consideration of this issue. Some of thee members *have publicly expressed reservations* about this legislation, and we should support them in their efforts. Senate members: P ST Name and Address Phone Fax = == ======================== ============== ============== R MS Lott, Trent 1-202-224-6253 1-202-224-2262 D DE Biden Jr., Joseph R. 1-202-224-5042 1-202-224-0139 D SD Daschle, Thomas A. 1-202-224-2321 1-202-224-2047 R UT Hatch, Orrin G. 1-202-224-5251 1-202-224-6331 R PA Specter, Arlen 1-202-224-4254 1-717-782-4920 D VT Leahy, Patrick J. 1-202-224-4242 1-202-224-3595 House members: Dist ST Name, Address, and Party Phone Fax ==== == ======================== ============== ============== 6 GA Gingrich, Newt (R) 1-202-225-4501 1-202-225-4656 3 MO Gephardt, Richard A. (D) 1-202-225-2671 1-202-225-7452 6 IL Hyde, Henry J. (R) 1-202-225-4561 1-202-226-1240 14 MI Conyers Jr., John (D) 1-202-225-5126 1-202-225-0072 President William Clinton: White House Comment Line: 1-202-456-1414 3. If you get a response, take a moment and send mail to vtw(a)vtw.org with "feedback" in the subject line. $ Mail vtw(a)vtw.org Subject: my feedback from calling Congress They said they're not going to pass most of Clinton's package, because it upsets the delicate balance between law enforcement and the public. ^D Mail sent! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- BACKGROUND Among other things, the law enforcement proposals circulating on Capitol Hill include provisions which: o WIRETAPPING WITHOUT COURT ORDER ALLOWED FOR 48 HOURS Congress and the President have already agreed to provisions which would dramatically expand law enforcement surveillance authority. Both of these provisions were proposed by the President as part of the 1995 counter-terrorism legislation, but were dropped from the final bill after Republicans and civil liberties advocates objected. The current proposal would expand law enforcement surveillance authority in two ways: - Emergency 48 Hour Wiretap Authority: Current law requires law enforcement officials to get the affirmative consent of a judge before installing a wiretap. The current proposal would expand law enforcement authority to wiretap "suspected terrorists" for up to 48 hours before obtaining a court order, limiting a critical 4th amendment safeguard. - Multi-Point "Roving" Wiretaps: Current law allows law enforcement to tap only specific LOCATIONS (i.e., a telephone number). In certain very limited circumstances, law enforcement can tap a specific INDIVIDUAL if it can be shown to a judge that the suspect is moving from place to place with the specific intent of thwarting law enforcement. The current proposal would expand this so-called "roving" wiretap authority by making it much easier for law enforcement to tap specific INDIVIDUALS as opposed to specific physical locations. This change would dramatically effect the balance between 4th Amendment privacy rights and public safety which has existed for nearly 30 years, and should not be enacted without careful consideration of the implications. o FUNDING FOR DIGITAL TELEPHONY WITHOUT PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY The Administration and Congress are seeking funding to implement the Digital Telephony Law in a way which eliminates any opportunity for public oversight of law enforcement surveillance ability. The controversial law, known officially as the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), granted the FBI new authority to influence the design of telecommunications networks. At the same time, the law provided substantial public oversight over the FBI's surveillance ability by requiring the FBI to state, on the public record, what its surveillance needs are. The FBI has faced stiff resistance from civil liberties groups and some members of Congress and has not yet been able to obtain funding to implement the requirements of the law. As part of the current proposal, the FBI is seeking a mechanism which will provide funding for CALEA in a way which skirts the public oversight provisions of the law. This is an extremely troubling move by law enforcement which, if enacted, would allow law enforcement essentially unlimited authority to influence the design of telecommunications networks without any accountability. Other provisions which could show up in legislation in the next 72 hours are: o BOMB MAKING MATERIAL ON THE INTERNET In the wake of the recent public concern about terrorism, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joseph Biden (D-DE) have renewed their efforts to pass legislation to restrict the availability of 'bomb- making' information on the Internet. The Feinstein/Biden amendment was added to the Senate Defense Appropriations bill (S. 1762) in early July, and is not currently part of the new law enforcement initiative. However, the amendment poses a serious threat to chill the the free flow of information on the Internet. o THREATEN TO IMPOSE NEW RESTRICTIONS ON ENCRYPTION TECHNOLOGIES: While no specific legislation has been proposed, the Clinton Administration has circulated an outline to Congress which states: "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." This statement marks the first time that the Administration has suggested legislation to restrict encryption. This is especially troubling because it comes at a time of growing Congressional support for legislation to promote privacy and security tools for the Net. Of even more concern, the Administration is clearly attempting to use the recent suspected terrorist incidents to push for a new and more restrictive encryption policy. If the Administration succeeds in passing new restrictions on encryption as part of the new surveillance legislation, the future of the Internet as a secure and trusted platform for commerce and private communication will be threatened. Some or all of these provisions may be included in a package voted on by both houses by August 3rd. It is not clear what a final bill will look like, and some of these provisions may not be considered by Congress until later this summer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS The following organizations all urge you to take this action to combat the surveillance initiatives. Check their pages for more background information on these issues. American Civil Liberties Union (http://www.aclu.org) American Communication Association Center for Democracy and Technology (http://www.cdt.org) Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org) EF-Austin (http://www.efa.org) Electronic Privacy Information Center (http://www.epic.org) Feminists for Free Expression National Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org) National Writers Union (http://www.nwu.org/nwu/) People For the American Way (http://www.pfaw.org) Voters Telecommunications Watch (http://www.vtw.org) Wired Ventures Ltd. (http://www.hotwired.com) ======================================================================

1 0

PCC_war
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

7-29-96. EBNews: "Encryption ICs Enable Ironclad Net Security." New encryption ICs on PCMCIA cards will be unveiled imminently to allow PC users to make transactions over the Internet with ironclad security. "This will open up electronic commerce pervasively and launch a new market for PCs," said TIS's Bill Sweet. Both National Semiconductor and VLSI Technology plan to unveil affordable chips shortly for PCMCIA encryption cards. National's thumb-scan project, which aims to provide an additional security factor, is a joint effort with Identix. In this system, a holographic laser chip on the card would image a portion of the holder's thumbprint. That image will be compared with the holder's digital thumbprint pattern stored on a memory chip in the card. 7-31-96. Jane's: "Future Warfare | Rise of the robots." A US Defense Science Board (DSB) task force is putting the final touches to a study that members promise will be one of the most controversial ever produced by the panel. The next century adversary will aggressively use offensive information warfare, rely on underground and covert urban facilities and have some ability to attack low earth orbiting satellites. It will require a "revolution in military affairs" achieved through enhanced surveillance capabilities, weapons of mass destruction, thousands of inexpensive missiles, a few very low observable cruise missiles, mines and diesel submarines. The only aspect of tactics and technology that everyone in the DoD seems to agree on is that the most important developments for warfighting over the next 10 to 20 years will be related to information systems. ----- http://jya.com/pccwar.txt (19 kb for 2) PCC_war

1 0

Internal Passports
by drose＠azstarnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 1 Aug 1996 (Timothy C. May) wrote: >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. My understanding is that the acceptable term is "ombud", or possibly "ombuds". Cf.: "chair", "anchor", "milk", "post", "g-", "colored", "fire", "police", "China", "French", etc.

1 0

Freeh slimes again: Digital Telephony costs $2 billion now ...
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Louis Freeh is now asking the Congress for $2 billion to fund Digital Telephony. Yes, that is FOUR TIMES what he said it would cost the taxpayers to give up their own privacy. Score one for the cynics who said $500 million was not enough. Ern

2 1

RE: ****Tacoma, Washington Starts Taxing Internet Access 07/30/96 (fwd)
by Jerome Tan 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here in Philippines, the government tax for connecting to the Internet, the percentage is 10%. Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 31 Jul 1996 11:26:59 -0400 > From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle(a)rpcp.mit.edu> > Subject: ****Tacoma, Washington Starts Taxing Internet Access 07/30/96 > > >WASHINGTON, DC, U.S.A., 1996 JUL 30 (NB) -- By Bill Pietrucha. > >Tacoma, Washington, has just gained the distinction of being the > >only municipality in the United States to tax Internet Access > >providers (IAPs) like telephone service providers. > > Somebody needs to do their homework. Austin, TX has been taxing ISP's for at least a year now. A recent Internet Provider meeting on this issue resulted in a return to ISP's of a goodly amound of their taxes because of various issues (read that I didn't go to meeting, I don't run an ISP but a SOHO consultancy w/ Internet services). > >The city of Tacoma has extended its six percent gross receipts tax on > >telecommunications services to include Internet services, Information > >Technology Association of America (ITAA) spokesperson Bob Cohen > >told Newsbytes. I have to pay the state 8.25% interest on any funds my customers deliver to me. > >If other cities attempted to follow Tacoma's lead in taxing IAPs, > >Miler said, it could cause the "Balkanization of the Internet, a > >hodgepodge of confusing, conflicting, and difficult to administer > >Internet tax rules and regulations. Agreed. Jim Choate

1 0

Tolerance
by Chris Adams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a comment to all of the 'true libertarians' out there, especially the "defend to the death" types: How many of you defended Mr. Sternlight's recent membership? # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> - Webpages for sale! Se habla JavaScript! # Automatically receive my resume or PGPKEY by sending email with a subject # of 'send PGPKEY' or 'send resume'. Capitalization counts so be careful! # Web site: http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htm

5 4

Re: Welcome Back
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:52 PM 8/1/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >> Do you have an honest job or are you still taking the King's Shilling? > >I have opened a law practice. Just this morning, I visited a client (in >jail) charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine ... in other words, >one of the Four Horsemen. They checked me for weapons, etc., upon entry, >but no one asked about any cryptographic munitions. Joke of the day: A swarthy fellow was in jail, and was visited by his sister and nerd brother in law. He tells them, "next time you show up, bring me something with a file in it." His bro in law brought a floppy disk... Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

POLL
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, The electronic newsletter put out by the TV show, C-NET Central, had this item in the most recent issue: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. "YOUR TURN": SHOULD YOU BE ABLE TO READ BOMB-MAKING INFO? The United States and seven other governments are moving to "felonize" distribution of bomb-making information on the Net and other electronic media. Yet censorship of the Net was recently dealt a double blow by twin defeats of the Communications Decency Act. Is this strictly a free speech issue? Or is there a difference in your mind between pictures of naked people and blueprints for a pipe bomb? And can the Net know the difference? To contribute your opinion, phone CNET at 415/395-7805, enter extension 5400, and leave a message. We'll listen to the responses and broadcast some of the best on CNET radio. Each week Digital Dispatch brings you the new "your turn" question, and each Wednesday you can hear the responses to the previous week's question on CNET radio: http://www.cnet.com/Content/Radio/ ----------------------------------------------------------------- Some of you may have a comment about this subject. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0