December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

My crypto-export URL was in the wrong place
by Rich Salz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I typo'd on the URL. http://www.osf.org/~rsalz/crypto-export.html Sorry for any confusion.

1 0

Re: A Libertine Question
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:50 PM 7/30/96 -0700, Mike Duvos wrote: >Alan Horowitz writes: >> On Mon, 29 Jul 1996 jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca wrote: >> >> > Think of how many of our laws are being enacted that tacitly make being >> > poor or indigent a crime. >> >> Horseshit. This is a poorly-disguised re-tread of one of the standard >> lines of the Patrice Lumumba University brand of leftist agitprop. > >Here in Seattle, we have an city attorney who specializes in creating >ordinances to annoy and harrass the underclass, often paving new roads >over former civil liberties in the process. The process of regulatory torment of homeless folks is divisible into two methods: restriction of anonymous behavior (e.g., travel, public speech, business transactions), and restriction of behavior to property-owners (sleeping, eating, assembly, recreation). The former is or should be disturbing to crypto-anarchy friendly folks because it limits the ability of every person to travel or make purchases or otherwise engage in economic activity anonymously. The latter should be disturbing to crypto-anarchy friendly folks because of the relationship between physical presence and regulatory jurisdiction - a government which requires you to establish your relationship to something valuable within its jurisdiction (like a car or real estate) before allowing you to exercise human/economic rights effectively establishes its ability to regulate you by seizing or otherwise burdening your relationship with your possession. In practice, the no-anonymity requirement is frequently conflated with the latter, in that demonstrating your relationship to valuable property implies susceptibility to punishment (and/or sufficient socialization/indoctrination) and long-term presence for later enforcement, such that a request for identification (with corresponding dossier check for previous instances of "antisocial" behavior) is likely to be unnecessary or penologically nonproductive. Which is a long way to say that street cops don't usually torment people with nice cars and/or houses, so those folks don't need to be so concerned about making sure their "papers" are "in order". So the unconstitutional and oppressive character of the various laws Mike Duvos refers to is mitigated by their lack of evenhanded enforcement. If a cop can demand ID from someone who "looks like he doesn't belong here" he can demand it from you. (modulo driving, this isn't legal. But give Justice [sic] Rehnquist and Clinton and random congressional maniacs a few more years and see where things stand.) Both requirements are reducible to the notion that a person must be punishable before they may act - in the extreme case, a person must be punishable before they will be allowed to exist. I find it very difficult to harmonize this position with the idea that governments exist to serve people, not the other way around. But maybe I just don't have my head right. Because homelessness itself is not inherently problematic (or easily distinguishable from "legitimate" activity), it's difficult to define it as a crime beyond Mr. "strong libertarian [sic]" Horowitz' "threat to public order and decorum". Cities have learned to regulate everyday activities since those are the only ones they're certain homeless people will engage in. Police officers have, in general, the good sense to avoid applying these regulations to people who look like they don't present a threat to "public order and decorum". Today those laws are applied to people who may smell bad and don't want traditional jobs. Tomorrow they may be applied to people who won't use only government-approved crypto or who want to defend themselves with guns or other weapons. And just as some people "don't have a right to live in Seattle" if they won't toe the line, other people may find they "don't have a right to live in the United States." * (* Other people (apparently not "strong libertarians") buy into all of that suspicious crap about the Bill of Rights and people being allowed to be themselves even if other people find it upsetting or non-decorous. But they probably don't appreciate how difficult it is to be a policeman, so we'll just ignore them, they're probably leftists. If they don't like how things go here, they can just get the hell out, hmm? Banning T-shirts with crypto code printed on them - that's one thing. But banning ratty old T-shirts that haven't been washed is totally different.) The regulation of ordinary social and economic activity is not a "homelessness issue", it's a "freedom issue". If you admit that it can legitimately be regulated but reassure yourself with your trust in the discretion and good judgement of the regulators, your liberty is more a matter of grace than of right. Have a nice day. -- Greg Broiles |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of gbroiles(a)netbox.com |an in-court demonstration by the People http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.

4 4

Re: A Libertine Question (fwd)
by Cerridwyn Llewyellyn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)EINSTEIN.ssz.com> argued: >As long as they have a license to operate a food dispencing facility (in >other words they are certifying they are aware of the correct processes for >such operations) then nobody should have the right to interfere with their >operation unless with probable cause (ie proof of danger such as bad weenies >in their hot dogs). This would not apply to individuals or families making >such food in the same place for their own and NOT public consumption. I believe the issue with Food Not Bombs is they didn't get the appropriate permits, etc, or were denied them, or something. However, I disagree with you on this point. I think they shouldn't be required to obtain a license, but everyone whom they serve food to should know that they don't have such a license. This would equal informed consent. Also, with Food Not Bombs, many of the people that the food is being served to is also involved in cooking, distributing food, and cleaning up. I've been told it's exactly like a big picnic, except for anyone is invited to help and/or eat.

1 0

Corporate e-mail policy
by George Kuzmowycz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The company I work for has set up a committee to draft a security policy involving, among other things, e-mail. Since I'm responsible for our networking and e-mail, I'm part of this group. Unfortunately, I'm outnumbered by legal, auditing and HR types who, basically, want to have access to everything. I am aware that there's a line of thinking which holds that what you do or say on company time, using company equipment is the company's business. I do not subscribe to this line of thinking, and believe that employees expect a "zone of privacy" in which their telephone calls will not be listened to and their e-mail will not be read or monitored. I am also aware that recent court cases have not supported this "zone of privacy" and have pretty much held that the employer can do whatever it wants with e-mail. What I want out of this process is to keep myself and my staff out of this business. As a practical matter, I'm sure the company could bring in a hired gun to do whatever they want; since our e-mail system does not easily support strong crypto, it's all there for the taking. In an ideal world, the rest of the group would agree with me and say "Yup, we have no business reading e-mail." Since that's not likely, I'm looking for examples of "privacy-friendly" corporate policies that I can put on the table in our meetings, and end up with a minority report. -gk-

4 3

RE: Tolerance (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: jbugden(a)smtplink.alis.ca > Date: Fri, 02 Aug 96 11:19:52 EST > Subject: RE: Tolerance (fwd) > > Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote: > >Libertarian views should be basicaly if it doesn't harm anothers person or > >property without their prior consent then it should be legal and >permissible. > > It is important to consider cultural factors when deciding how groups will react > to differing standards of legal and permissible actions. For example, a brief > summary of the basic tenets held by some different European cultures are given > below: > > British: Everything is permitted, unless it is forbidden. > German: Everything is forbidden, unless it is permitted. > France: Everything is permitted, especially if it is forbidden. > Culture has nothing to do with inherent civil liberities, you have them simply for being alive. People create social contracts to limit those rights. You have the cart before the horse. Jim Choate

1 0

RE: Tolerance (fwd)
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate <ravage(a)einstein.ssz.com> wrote: >Libertarian views should be basicaly if it doesn't harm anothers person or >property without their prior consent then it should be legal and >permissible. It is important to consider cultural factors when deciding how groups will react to differing standards of legal and permissible actions. For example, a brief summary of the basic tenets held by some different European cultures are given below: British: Everything is permitted, unless it is forbidden. German: Everything is forbidden, unless it is permitted. France: Everything is permitted, especially if it is forbidden. Au revoir, James

1 0

privacy is a SMOKESCREEN.
by artichoke bill 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

from eff: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: ALERT: Congress Rushing to Enact Anti-Privacy Bill - Call Congress NOW! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **** Last minute update **** Just before ye editor was about to send this issue out, reports are filtering in that negotiations on the bill that is the subject of the alert below, have collapsed. CNN reports: "Key members of the Senate blamed House conservatives for the failure, saying they had insisted on linking proposed new wiretapping authority for the FBI to an expansion of privacy laws." CNN quotes Rep. Charles Schumer (D-NY) as saying that House Republican leaders "have come up with this smokescreen called privacy". You may wish to let Rep. Schumer know how you feel about your right to privacy being labelled "a smokescreen": 9th Dist. NY Schumer, Charles E. (D) 1-202-225-6616 (voice), 1-202-225-4183 (fax) The full text of the CNN article is available at: http://www.cnn.com/US/9608/01/wh.terror.bill/index.html The article also reports that "lawmakers said there is hope for agreement after the month long" Congressional recess beginning at the end of this week. THIS MEANS THAT THE ALERT BELOW IS STILL URGENT, and still important. We just have a short breathing space now.

1 0

Re: Blurring the Chains of Causation
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in my view the ultimate foolishness of this sort was bringing Cessna Aircraft to it's knees by sueing them on behalf of people who crashed because of their inability to handle the airplane in the conditions into which they put themselves. -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Thu Aug 1 18:32:44 1996 > Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 10:39:12 -0700 > X-Sender: tcmay(a)mail.got.net > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > From: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) > Subject: Blurring the Chains of Causation > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 4559 > > > 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: Is 1024-bit PGP key enough?
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

actually, the IDEA key is 128 bits. -paul > From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Fri Aug 2 03:06:24 1996 > X-Sender: gcg(a)mail.pb.net > X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 2.2 (32) > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type> : > text/plain> ; > charset="us-ascii"> > Date: Thu, 01 Aug 1996 22:16:06 -0400 > To: jim(a)ACM.ORG > From: "Geoffrey C. Grabow" <gcg(a)pb.net> > Subject: Re: Is 1024-bit PGP key enough? > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Content-Length: 1454 > > At 15:38 08/01/96 PDT, Jim Gillogly wrote: > > > >Somebody says: > >>> Is security provided by 1024-bit PGP key sufficient against most powerful > >>> computers that are available today? Say if smoe organization spent 10 > >>> billions of dollars on a cracking machine, would it be possible to crack > >>> the keys in reasonable time? > > > >Derek Atkins <warlord(a)MIT.EDU> responds with some useful and authoritative > >information -- thanks. > > > Also, remember that although the PGP key is 1024 bits, it generates a much > smaller IDEA key with 56 bits (I think... anyone?). The 56 bit key is > vunerable to that $1 mil mystery machine that the NSA may or may not have. > > G.C.G. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > | Geoffrey C. Grabow | Great people talk about ideas. | > | Oyster Bay, New York | Average people talk about things. | > | gcg(a)pb.net | Small people talk about people. | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------| > | PGP 2.6.2 public key available at http://www.pb.net/~wizard | > | and on a plethora of key servers around the world. | > |----------------------------------------------------------------------| > | That which does not kill us, makes us stranger. - Trevor Goodchild | > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >

1 0

Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 01:36:56 -0400 (EDT) > From: Alan Horowitz <alanh(a)infi.net> > Subject: Re: "adjust your attitude with their billy club" > > "Given the loss of privacy tolerated by 99.9999% of American citizens in > the past twenty years, no one has a right to complain about the > government taking new powers for itself." > > You cannot have it both ways. If you are free to define what is or is not > a public nuisance when you do it; likewise am I. AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution. ARTICLE IX. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. [The first ten amendments went into effect on 15 December 1791.]

2 1