December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Why Leahy is No Friend of Ours
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"attila(a)primenet.com" "attila" 5-MAY-1996 21:36:54.93 > how many _truly_ "populist" presidents have we elected? Given the numbers of times that a democracy has done more harm than good to civil liberties (Prohibition, the election of Islamic Fundamentalists in Algeria, etcetera), we don't _want_ a "populist"/demagogue president. We want someone in charge (to whatever degree that someone has to be in charge) who will respect civil liberties. The masses aren't going to elect such a person; they prefer protection to liberty and always will. > "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little > temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." > --Ben Franklin (Historical Review of PA -1759) > > and, the bottom line is: > > "It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen > from falling into error; > it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government > from falling into error." > --Robert H. Jackson (1892-1954), U.S. Judge Quite. -Allen

1 0

Re: Why I Pay Too Much in Taxes
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jk(a)stallion.ee" "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?J=FCri_Kaljundi?=" 5-MAY-1996 11:47:15.29 >Here in Estonia there was a proposal made in the parliament to remove >taxation on corporate income (right now there is a proportional corporate >income tax of 26%), which should bring more foreign investments into >Estonia and also make Estonian economy develop faster. Estonia I think is >one of few countries where there is a possibility of accepting this kind >of law. Of course European countries, USA and different international >financial organisations are very against this kind of law. This law would >apply both to companies and to self-employed private persons (farmers for >example). Let me guess the reason for the objection... it would make siting an offshore-type company in Estonia to avoid taxes possible. -Allen

1 0

Re: Kid Gloves or Megaphones
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"jamesd(a)echeque.com" 5-MAY-1996 14:18:14.34 >>From: Lucky Green >>>It is true that the issuer is unable to discover that double blinding is >>>being used. The real problem with the protocol is that it requires >>>payor/payee collusion, which may make it difficult to execute. >At 07:58 PM 5/4/96 EDT, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> Can the payee discover that the payor isn't colluding before the bank >>can figure out who the payee is? >If the payor is not colluding, then the payee will immediately discover >he has not been paid, because the checksums are wrong, and his software >says "bad payment" >If the payor is colluding, then no matter what he reveals to the bank, >the bank cannot discover the payee. Note that with payee anonymity, >the payee does not have to promptly check in his money, so the bank >has no hope of narrowing the search by coincidence in time. >But if the payee is colluding, then the payor can be detected by >coincidence in time. The other messages on this appear to be saying about the same thing, with the exception of this last part. _Except_ for that, the payor/payee collusion part doesn't appear to be a problem on the anonymnity side of things. I would guess that Lucky Green's comment was then that there was an additional complexity for payor and payee. -Allen

1 0

Re: WWW proxies?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 0:30 5/5/96, Lou Poppler wrote: >On Fri, 26 Apr 1996 19:13:06 -0400 (EDT), >Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> wrote: >} >} Has anyone developed such a beast yet? > >I know of two anonymizing web proxies. See: >http://hplyot.obspm.fr:6661/ and: >http://anonymizer.cs.cmu.edu:8080/ > >I think both sites offer source for what they are doing. >I've used the Observatory de Paris site a few times as http_proxy. >Last I checked, the Carnegie-Mellon site only serves requests from >*.cmu.edu clients. Of course these sites are in an ideal position to log their user's every move. With so many users making all their http requests through a single site, the commercial value of the information that could be gained by logging traffic at the site is tremendous. Only when a network of anonymizing sites is connected through something like PipeNet and the users are either PipeNet nodes themselves, or at least randomly use various PipeNet nodes for their http connections, does the security of the user increase. With only one hop, IMHO, the potential risk outweighs the potential benefit. I'd advise against using such single-hop http anonymizers. YMMV. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

4 3

Police report body found during Colby search
by reagle＠rpcp.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

WASHINGTON (Reuter) - A body was found Monday in the area where former CIA Director William Colby went missing after going canoeing on April 27, Maryland Department of Natural Resources police said. There was no immediate confirmation that the body was that of Colby, a spokeswoman said. ``Yes, a body was found,'' she said. The search had been under way in the area of Colby's weekend home at Cobb Neck in southern Maryland on a tributary of the Potomac River. Colby, who served as director of the CIA in the 1970s, was reported missing after his swamped canoe was found and he had not returned to his home. A CNN producer reported that a male body was found washed up on the shore of the Wicomico River about 20 yards from where the canoe was found. While there was no immediate identification of the body, CNN said ``officials have confirmed it was a male body and they say everything fits -- it looks like Colby.'' His disappearance had touched off an air and water search that included divers and specially trained dogs but the probe turned up no sign of a body in the cold, murky waters.

1 0

Security Solutions at USENIX SECURITY Symposium
by cynthia＠usenix.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

6th UNIX Security Symposium Focusing on Applications of Cryptography July 22-25, 1996 Fairmont Hotel, San Jose, California Sponsored by the USENIX Association, the UNIX and Advanced Computing Systems Professional and Technical Association Co-sponsored by UniForum In cooperation with: The Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) and IFIP WG 11.4 The Symposium is offering day-long tutorials, refereed papers, panel presentations, invited talks, a vendor display, and Birds-of-a-Feather sessions. Practical solutions, especially cryptographic approaches, to UNIX security will be described, dissected, and expanded. Ron Rivest of MIT delivers the Keynote Address to kick off the intensive Technical Sessions. New research on public key issues, electronic commerce, safe working areas, and secure communication will be examined in 21 peer-reviewed technical presentations. UniForum is sponsoring panel discussions on Security and Privacy; Electronic Commerce, Cryptography Infrastructure, and Cryptography and the Law. There will also be sessions on the latest version of PGP, Internet Firewalls, and the C2Net Privacy model. Tutorial topics include: Implementing Cryptography; World Wide Web and Internet Security; A Comparison of UNIX Security Tools; and Security for Software Developers. Three new features have been added this year. An informal Vendor Display will allow hands-on demonstration of security products. (Vendors may call Cynthia Deno at 408 335 9445 or email to display(a)usenix.org.) USENIX is sponsoring a secure Internet connection in the Terminal Room. And, USENIX members will be able to sign up for the PGP Key Signing Service. For the complete program and registration materials, visit our Web site: http://www.usenix.org; send email to: info(a)usenix.org (your message should contain the line "send security conference"); or contact the USENIX Conference office at 714 588 8649. /-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/- | Cynthia Deno | | | Tel: 408 335 9445 | USENIX | | Fax: 408 335 5327 | The UNIX and Advanced Computing Systems | | cynthia(a)USENIX.org | Technical and Professional Association | | Check out USENIX on the Net..........http://www.USENIX.org | /-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-

1 0

Internet telephony report
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While they _probably_ aren't going to start trying to charge for Internet phone service, the FCC still thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet - with the egalitarian excuse of equal access as among the reasons. Hmph... bureaucracy. -Allen From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 6-MAY-1996 03:21:47.24 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 From: "Craig A. Johnson" <caj(a)tdrs.com> To: "Multiple recipients of list cyber-rights(a)cpsr.org" <errors(a)snyside.sunnyside.com> Subject: cr> Regulating the Internet It is highly recommended that those who are concerned about the coming communications regulatory regime read the FCC's recent NPRMs on "universal service" and "interconnection." --caj @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ANALYSIS: FREE NET TELEPHONY + by Craig A. Johnson American Reporter Correspondent Washington 4/29/96 net-regulation 1023/$10.23 THE REGULATORS MEET THE INTERNET by Craig A. Johnson American Reporter Correspondent WASHINGTON -- Fears of Rambo-like regulation have spawned a sort of spring fever in the online world, with presumptive alarms and bulletins ricocheting all over the Net. Will the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) choke the Internet's wide-open pathways with regulatory underbrush? Will the petition filed by the Americas' Carriers Telecommunications Association (ACTA) on March 4 be granted, stopping Internet telephony or mandating access charges? (AR, No. 245 ) Or, even more catastrophically, will the Net somehow be swept under the FCC regime for telecommunications carriers? The answers, according to sources both inside and outside of the FCC, for the time being, are a qualified no. On April 19, the FCC gave its tentative response on the Net telephony problem, partially assuaging worries that new regulations will require access charges and tariffing for long distance voice over the Internet. Although the soft no from the FCC was reassuring, the wall protecting Internet voice as an "information service" has scores of cracks and may still crumble under the blows of a regulatory hammer. The issue was addressed in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on "interconnection," or more formally, "implementation of the local competition provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996." The NPRM is as interesting for what it does not say as for what it does. Generally, it poses a lot of questions, on which parties will file comments, and on the basis of which the FCC will finalize rules in August. The agency sees the proceeding and the consequent rules as establishing "the 'new regulatory paradigm' that is essential to achieving Congress' policy goals." The visible fractures in the old regulatory regime stood out prominently in the interconnection notice. Two aspects of the proceeding, in particular, directly relate to Internet access and pricing regimes. First, the FCC made it clear that current access charges and interconnection regulations are "enforceable until they are superseded." The FCC said, in regulatory-ese, that it wanted comments on "any aspect of this Notice that may affect existing 'equal access and nondiscriminatory interconnection restrictions and obligations (including receipt of compensation).'" Translated, this means that Net telephone providers and users can breathe a little more easily for the time being. But, the call for comments on the existing "restrictions and guidelines" should not be taken for granted. It is precisely these regulations -- which exempt "enhanced service" providers, like Internet and online service providers from paying access charges for their usage of the facilities and network components of local exchange carriers (LECs) -- which are on the table in this proceeding and related ones. A second aspect of the interconnection proceeding relates directly to definitions. The Commission asks for comment "on which carriers are included under" the definition of "telecommunications carriers" offered in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Critically, the agency asks: "How does the provision of an information service [as conventionally defined in the law and prior regulations], in addition to an unrelated telecommunications service, affect the status of a carrier as a 'telecommunications carrier?'" This is a call for commenters to address the issue of whether "information service providers," such as ISPs, who also provide "telecommunications services," should be treated as "telecommunications carriers" and therefore be subject to all, some, or none of the requirements of common carriers, including the payment of access charges and the filing of tariffs. In practical terms the FCC is asking the online community to persuade them that ISPs who permit Internet audio streaming applications, such as long distance voice, should not be considered under the same rules applying to "telecommunications providers." The FCC emphasizes that the interconnection rulemaking "is one of a number of interrelated proceedings," and explains that the answer to how, in which ways, and to what extent the Internet will be regulated will be a product of "the interrelationship between this proceeding, our recently initiated proceeding to implement the comprehensive universal service provisions of the 1996 Act and our upcoming proceeding to reform our Part 69 access charge rules." This should be seen as a warning flag that issues concerning access charges for the Internet have yet to be even taken up by the Commission, and will be one of the outcomes of several complex proceedings, with public comments invited from all consumer and business interests. The FCC NPRM and order establishing the joint federal-state universal service board, issued on March 8, for example, emphasizes the provision in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 which stipulates that "[a]ccess to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the country." The FCC says that "commenters may wish to discuss Internet access availability, data transmission capability, ... enhanced services, and broadband services." In both this and the interconnection notices, the agency emphasizes its statutory authority to regulate the Internet. The news so far is relatively positive. The FCC claims it doesn't want to prematurely slap regulations on the Net which may stunt its remarkable growth and vitality. But the handwriting is on the wall -- in several different hands and scrawled over cracks. Arguments for Internet volume-based or per-packet pricing will be surely surface in comments in the FCC proceedings. The old argument for the "modem tax," which says that data bits should be priced differently than voice bits, will likely rear its scarred head. Internet access is on the charts and in the dockets at the Commission. It should have the same pride of place for all Internet activists and user group communities. The FCC is asking the Internet and computer user and business communities to wake up to an emergent regulatory regime in which the old comfortable dualities such as "information services" and "telecommunications services" -- which in the past have insulated the Internet from regulation -- may not be easily parsed. In short, the agency is begging for help in drafting the cyber-roadmaps for the future. (Note: Both the universal service NPRM and order and the interconnection NPRM can be accessed via the FCC's Web page -- http://www.fcc.gov. Many of the comments for the universal service proceedings are also now available at the site.) -30- (Craig Johnson writes on cyber rights issues for WIRED.) The American Reporter "The Internet Daily Newspaper" Copyright 1995 Joe Shea, The American Reporter All Rights Reserved The American Reporter is published daily at 1812 Ivar Ave., No. 5, Hollywood, CA 90028 Tel. (213)467-0616, by members of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Internet discussion list. It has no affiliation with the SPJ. Articles may be submitted by email to joeshea(a)netcom.com. Subscriptions: Reader: $10.00 per month ($100 per year) and $.01 per word to republish stories, or Professional: $125.00 per week for the re-use of all American Reporter stories. We are reporter-owned. URL: http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/today.html Archives: http://www.newshare.com/Reporter/archives/ For more info on AR: http://oz.net/~susanh/arbook.html @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~ CYBER-RIGHTS ~ ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Visit The Cyber-Rights Library, accessible via FTP or WWW at: ftp://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ http://www.cpsr.org/cpsr/nii/cyber-rights/Library/ You are encouraged to forward and cross-post list traffic, pursuant to any contained copyright & redistribution restrictions. ~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~-~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

Re: PICS & CyberAngels
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"vznuri(a)netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 4-MAY-1996 11:59:26.15 >this seems to suggest a misunderstanding of PICS either by you or >the "CyberAngels". PICS does not require any particular action by page owners >and is entirely based on that principle (there is a pretty good >argument it would be unconstitutional, impractical, idiotic, etc. if >it didn't). it defines a standard by >which ratings servers and queries are constructed and formatted. >anyone can rate any information. if the CyberAngels want to rate >all kinds of pages in cyberspace and set up their own rating service, >more power to them. the ratings do not restrict those who do not >choose the restrictions. The instructions in question, at http://www.safesurf.com/cyberangels/#look, are for their "volunteers" to report - including to both the page's ISP and to government - any page with sexual content that doesn't have a PICS such that it can be censored. In other words, they want to try to kick off systems - including potentially via legal action such as nonsense like "corrupting a minor" or whatever - any pages that don't set themselves up to be censored. That would include by government such as China, as well as by fundamentalist parents. Given their approval of Detweiler, you're making it more and more likely that you're him.... -Allen

3 2

Re: PICS required by laws
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"sjb(a)universe.digex.net" "Scott Brickner" 6-MAY-1996 14:23:50.08 >The problem is that it requires the cooperation of both of your ISPs. >You'll never receive packets to route from either of them unless you >have some sort of contract in place. In the scenario I outlined, the >"common carrier" status of the ISPs is contingent on their following >the censorship protocol, so their contract will require that you, too, >follow it. How difficult would it be to set up a router protocol to automatically select any from a series of other routers that announced itself willing (for a certain amount of ecash, perhaps)? I had thought that this was pretty close to the case in any event, for small networks anyway - and connections between small networks can interconnect into one large network. >Even in the face of a "digital silk road", this isn't likely to >change. The cost of operating a router is proportional to the number >of connections it has. The vast majority of traffic doesn't have >stringent enough delay requirements that it'll be willing to pay the >additional cost of going through a very highly connected router. >Therefore the hierarchical star configuration is near-optimal for >normal traffic (and pretty much all of the stuff that they claim they >want to censor). Directly proportional? I'd think there would have to be somewhat of a fixed cost involved. The question is whether the fixed cost (including the cost of a router to handle the ever-increasing bandwidth) is dropping faster than the cost of the number of connections. And your "normal traffic" doesn't seem to be including Internet Phone, which I can see being a major source of bandwidth in the future. -Allen

1 0

PICS: cyberratings, not censorship
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

some more information on PICS for the interested. I am a strong advocate of this system because even though it involves ratings, I see it as expressly and vehemently anti-censorship. this will be difficult to understand for some people who equate ratings with censorship, and it will require some major education to help people see why this is not the case with PICS (platform independent content selection). why is PICS *not* censorship? because of its key design goals: 1) people are free to choose what ratings they use. whoever sets up the system decides. i.e. parents might pick a particular rating agency for their family. people might even use a combination of ratings. i.e. weigh the Christian Zealots 50%, and the People for the Improvement of Cyberspace 50%, etc 2) ratings are not merely for blacking out pages. they can be for finding "neat" pages (Point Communications 5%, etc), or "child friendly" or whatever 3) ratings can be created by anyone, including gov't agencies, individuals, foreign governments, religious fanatics, etc., and moreover they can be in any form whatsoever, they are merely seen as information-- the market will decide which ones are useful and which ones are worthless, and whether to create standards in various specific categories. regarding the CyberAngels, I think it would be an excellent project to have them while away their lifetimes going through the web and applying their official "cyberangel rating" to every page they encounter. it would be a valuable public service, and they'd probably get a real kick out of it (hmmm, perhaps "control-freak-ecstasy"?). it gives them a chance to put their brains and hands where their mouths are, so to speak. next time you hear someone rant about pornography in cyberspace, or censorship, or whatever, (whether it is Gore's wife or some nobody on an obscure mailing list), tell them to set up their own PICS rating service and shut up. if you hear someone whine that no one is listening to their rating service or using their ratings, tell them that it's an excellent existence proof that no one truly cares what they think, and for them to jam it down anyone's throat (via legislation or whatever) only proves how manipulative, desperate, and out-of-touch-with-reality they are. truly, I hope that some day the universal and accepted response to seeing something you don't like on the internet will be to start or join a rating service, and NOT to try to pass a bill in congress that attempts to regulate cyberspace (@#$%^&*). will there ever be a day in the future in which, e.g., the Iranian governments of the world decide to start a Moslem Cyberspace Blacklisting Service instead of the less-efficient and less-effective method of Lucrative Blasphemer Assassination Grants? help support this proposal and perhaps it will happen. <g> ------- Forwarded Message Date: Mon, 06 May 1996 10:54:56 -0400 To: pics-info@... From: Paul Resnick <presnick(a)research.att.com> Subject: vac-wg Announcing PICS 1.1! Version 1.1 of the PICS technical specifications are now available from the PICS web page (http://w3.org/PICS) The direct URLs for the two documents are: http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/services.html http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/PICS/labels.html We plan to submit them as informational RFCs in the near future. These documents are now frozen. If significant new features are specified in the future, there will be a higher version number. Three cheers! - ------------------------------------------------------------ Paul Resnick AT&T Research Public Policy Research Room 2C-430B 908-582-5370 (voice) 600 Mountain Avenue 908-582-4113 (fax) P.O. Box 636 Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636

1 0