December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:50 AM 8/8/96 -0700, Rich Burroughs wrote: >On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: > >> Looks like we're a little late. However, we can still grab the tape from >> Oregon's DMV for $220. It would be an interesting excercise to try to get >> these tapes from each state with similar provisions and put them all >> online. > >This information has been available in Oregon for at least a couple of >years on CD. I've always been concerned about the privacy implications of >that service -- perhaps that's the upside of this story? That people do >give a rat's ass about their privacy? Actually, the lesson to be learned is that the news media is filled with a bunch of hypocrites. These people are supposed to be REPORTERS, for god's sake. Are they trying to tell us that they've never gone to the DMV and forked over $4 to find out the owner of a car? Can you say, "investigative reporting"? I think they're just carrying water for their friends who work for government. >I do think that the information should be able to be disseminated on the >Net as long as it's legal. While I think that the information should be disseminated on the net REGARDLESS of whether "it's legal" in any particular jurisdiction. Or, perhaps more accurately, I think that this information shouldn't be collected at all. Then it couldn't be abused. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Internal Passports
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:37 PM 8/5/96 -0700, you wrote: >Personally, I don't care. In fact, when employing gardeners and yard works >I prefer Mexicans. But the law says, these days, that I must verify the >legality of workers *if* they appear to be dark-skinned, Mexican, Latin, or >the like. I say "if" because there are no requirements in general for >white-skinned, Anglo workers....no work permits, no proofs of citizenship >(such a document is currently lacking in the American pantheon...I, a mixed >descendant of Mayflower colonist and Scandinavian immigrants, lack such >"proof"). If you're _employing_ Anglos, you're currently required to disrespect their honesty and demand proof that their papers are in order to fill out the I-9 form. There's a list of "one from column A or one from columns B and C" of acceptable papers, such as passports, birth certificates, driver's licenses, US Military ID, etc., which the government uses to determine whether they want to give you permission to hire them and give them permission to work. If you don't have these, you can join the Army, and they'll give you some papers. I hope you weren't Un-American enough to be born at home, though - without that government-issued birth certificate, the Army won't be able to verify your age. None of that is really proof of citizenship - after all, you could have renounced your US citizenship and become stateless or joined a foreign government. But President Buchanan's loyalty oath requirements should take care of that, as well as help with the problem of all these immigrant Brits and Irish and Canadians flooding our shores - I mean, look around you, they're everywhere. Y'all can't walk into a 7-11 these days without some clerk speaking funny-soundin' English at you. And the reason you can't legally just hire contractors and not have them count as employees has a lot to do with Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who made a lot of money running ADP, a computer-services bodyshop, that wanted to preserve its advantages against more flexible competition. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Defuse Authority!

6 6

Imprisoned for Not Having a Gun?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:35 PM 8/8/96, talon57(a)well.com wrote: >Jonathon <grafolog(a)netcom.com> wrote: > >>Said ordinance being passed, as a protest against Elk Grove, IL >>passing an orinance, banning handguns. Anybody know when Elk >>Grove revoked their ordinance? Crime went down for six months >>there [ Elk Grove ] after the ban was passed, then it went up >>far surpassing previous crime levels, for all types of crime. > >Pardon me Jonathon, but I believe you are confusing Morton Grove >with Elk Grove. I do not have the statistics for the crime rates >there, but several friends who have moved from there insist the >crime rate has continued upwards as you mentioned. Also there are >a couple of other interesting facts. Regarding that town nearby that passed a _requirement_ that all households have a gun: "Ma'm, I'm Deputy Uptite, of the Dork's Grove Sheriff's Department. I'm here to check on reports that you haven't obtained a gun, as required by law. Could I come in and take a look around?" "But I don't like guns, and I don't want one in my house." "I'm sorry, ma'm, but it's the law. According to the People's Self-Protection Act of 1997, you _must_ have a gun. Now what I'm going to do is give you a break. Think of this as a "fix-it ticket." Take this down to my cousin's gun store, right off of Main and 10th, and he'll get you set up with a Glock 23 or maybe a nice little Beretta. Shouldn't cost you more than $400, and it'll save you a 6-month stretch at the work farm. Have a nice day. Oh, and be sure to spend at least an hour at the week at the range...that's part of the law, too." --- Pro-gun fascism is just as bad a anti-gun fascism. I do recall that the "you must have a gun" town had some exemptions for folks opposed to guns, blah blah, but it still is intensely revolting to me that any town could ever pass such a law. Much as I think being armed is useful and all that, allowing such a law to go unchallenged feeds into the same approach that tries to ban guns...if guns can be required, they can be banned. What part of the Second Amendment did they not understand? (Legal quibblers will perhaps say the Second applies to _Congress_ (as in "Congress shall make no law"), and not to states and communities. I disagree. Can a town restrict free speech just because it is not the Congress?) --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."

6 5

Suit filed to enjoin crypto provisions of the ITAR
by Peter D. Junger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I have cross-posted this press release by my lawyers to several mailing-lists. I am subscribed to all of them and I believe that this information is relevant to all of them, but I apologize because you may receive several copies.] -- Peter D. Junger--Case Western Reserve University Law School--Cleveland, OH Internet: junger(a)pdj2-ra.f-remote.cwru.edu junger(a)samsara.law.cwru.edu URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu ------------------------Press Release--------------------------------- Law Professor Sues Federal Government Over Computer Privacy Issues Federal Civil Rights Action Seeks Injunction Against State Department And National Security Agency Cleveland Scholar Attacks Prohibition On Discussing Cryptographic Software With Foreign Students And Colleagues For Immediate Release Cleveland, Wednesday, August 7, 1996 For More Information Contact: Raymond Vasvari (216) 522-1925 Gino Scarselli (216) 291-8601 More Information Will Be Available at: URL: //http:/samsara.law.cwru.edu A Case Western Reserve University law professor filed suit today in federal court, challenging government regulations which restrict his ability to teach a course in computer law. Peter Junger, a twenty-five year veteran of the law school faculty, will file a federal civil rights action this afternoon in the United States District Court in Cleveland. The suit names the Department of State and the secretive National Security Agency, which administer federal regulations limiting Professor Junger's ability to teach. The case involves the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, or ITAR, federal regulations which restrict the export of military technology. Under the ITAR, cryptographic computer software, which encodes text to preserve the privacy of messages on the Internet, is considered a "munition" and subject to strict export control. The regulations raise significant First Amendment questions by defining "export" to include discussing technical information about non-classified software with foreign nationals, such as students registered for Professor Junger's course. In recent months, the State Department has sent a series of letters threatening possible criminal action to a Florida man who posted a simple cryptographic algorithm to the "sci.crypt" Usenet Newsgroup, an Internet site popular with cryptography enthusiasts. These and similar incidents have caused Professor Junger to limit his discussions of cryptographic material with foreign colleagues, for fear of violating the ITAR. Penalties for unlicenced disclosure of cryptographic information are severe: federal law provides ten year prison terms and One Million Dollar fines for those convicted of violating the Arms Export Control Act, the legislation under which the ITAR was promulgated. Professor Junger, whose class at Case Western Reserve focuses on the legal aspects of computer use and software development, plans to turn away any foreign students who register for the course this fall, largely because the law is uncertain as to what he may teach, and to whom. The restrictions at issue are administered by the Department of State, in cooperation with the ultra-secret National Security Agency, the organization charged with eavesdropping on foreign governments. Under the ITAR, Junger may not teach foreign students about even simple software capable of encoding messages. Such software is vital to maintaining the privacy of communications and financial transactions on the Internet, and Junger believes that lawyers need to understand how it works in order to prepare to practice in an increasingly technological world. The information that Junger wishes to disclose is widely available on the Internet and elsewhere. "It's not as though we are talking about classified information," explained Gino Scarselli, one of three lawyers representing Junger in the case. "The material at issue in this case can be found in any university library, but the regulations make no exceptions for even the most basic software," Scarselli noted. The lawsuit does not challenge the government's right to restrict access to classified information. Junger is also represented by Raymond Vasvari and Kevin Francis O'Neill, two Cleveland attorneys with considerable experience in First Amendment issues. As Vasvari explained, the suit presents important First Amendment questions about the government's ability to regulate academic life. "These regulations allow the government to dictate what a professor may and may not teach, even though the material involved poses no threat to national security," Vasvari explained. The suit charges that by requiring Junger to apply for a federal license to discuss cryptography with foreigners, the government is violating a well-established First Amendment rule which prohibits the government from imposing prior restraints on expression without clear, narrowly drawn standards distinguishing prohibited expression from permissible speech. The United States Supreme Court has consistently held that such prior restraints face a heavy burden in court, and that standardless licencing schemes allowing officials broad discretion in restriction speech are unconstitutional. Because computer cryptography is expected to play an important role in the economic development of the Internet, the case is being closely watched. Scarselli has worked closely with attorneys affiliated with the San Francisco based Electronic Frontier Foundation in preparing the suit, and Junger and his lawyers have been in frequent contact with John Gilmore, formerly of Sun Microsystems, who has offered his assistance as a technical advisor in the case. At issue is not only Junger's right to discuss cryptography with foreigners, but also his and other's right to publish and distribute such information both in traditional forms and on the internet. Professor Junger's suit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, prohibiting the government from interfering with his, or any other person's, discussing non-classified cryptographic information with foreign persons or from publishing that information. Lawyers for Junger have moved the court for a preliminary injunction. Junger's course begins in the fall semester, later this month.

1 0

For what it's worth...
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Erltsung Schang <etschang(a)zsu.edu.cn> Subject: Could anyone feed me news? Date: Thu, 08 Aug 1996 20:49:10 +0800 Organization: Network Center of Zhongshan University Lines: 14 Message-ID: <3209E246.DE3(a)zsu.edu.cn> Reply-To: etschang(a)zsu.edu.cn NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.96.129.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0b5aGold (Win95; I) Hi, Could anyone help me to feed me news? Thank you very much! Erltsung Schang Network Center of Zhongshan University 135, West Xin-gang Road Guangzhou, GD 510275 China Phone: 86-20-84184905 Fax: 86-20-84193772 E-mail: etschang(a)zsu.edu.cn

1 0

RE: STEGO GUNS
by talon57＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jonathon <grafolog(a)netcom.com> wrote: >Said ordinance being passed, as a protest against Elk Grove, IL >passing an orinance, banning handguns. Anybody know when Elk >Grove revoked their ordinance? Crime went down for six months >there [ Elk Grove ] after the ban was passed, then it went up >far surpassing previous crime levels, for all types of crime. Pardon me Jonathon, but I believe you are confusing Morton Grove with Elk Grove. I do not have the statistics for the crime rates there, but several friends who have moved from there insist the crime rate has continued upwards as you mentioned. Also there are a couple of other interesting facts. 1) The city council exempted themselves from the handgun ban. 2) The wife of the Mayor reportedly purchased a handgun the day after the law was enacted. Brian

1 0

Drive the SF Central Freeway, have your license plate photo'ed.
by i am not a number! 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CBS radio news this morning: 80,000 commuters traveling the central f'way in SF will have information mailed to them regarding the quake retrofit blah blah. How? Their license plates have been photographed. ... and the cheery "news" anchorwoman sweetly moved on to the next story.....

1 0

Re: Oregon License Plate Site in the News Tonight!
by jfricker＠vertexgroup.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:32 PM 8/8/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, John F. Fricker wrote: > >> ObCypherpunks: How many people do you know that are working on a day to day >> basis with medical records systems, the District Attorney's computers, your >> doctor's computers, state Department of Health, and so on. I'm sure it's >> come up before but isn't this an obvious of application of encryption and >> PAK (Public Access to Keys)? Any legislation currently to _require_ that >> medical records and such be encrypted with access restricted. > >"Require"? > >Wouldn't do shit. It's a social problem more than a technological problem. > Isn't that the role of legislation? To implement solutions that society would not do on it's own? The enabling technology is obviously off the self. I think you may have misinterpretted my last sentence which was supposed to have had a ? at the end. Where's the proof reader when you need one! --j

1 0

PGP/Unix scripts, mail proggies?
by Chris Lee 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello all, I joined this list a while ago and am curious whether a there is a simple way to encrypt/decrypt e-mail with PGP in a Linux(Unix) enviroment...? Sorry if this has been answered a thousand times, but it would really make PGP a more viable option with my small ISP. Thank you very much for any answers, please reply to me personally. Chris Lee PS Please don't suggest any Windows programs, excluding X-Windows of course. :) =============================================================== | chrislee(a)sunspot.tiac.net | Finger for PGP Public Key | | "What color is a chameleon on a mirror?" -BSD | | WWW Page: http://www.tiac.net/users/chrislee | ===============================================================

4 3

Re: driver license info, loss of liberty, etc.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:29 PM 8/8/96 -0400, Pete Loshin wrote: >The furor over the Oregon DMV database seems a bit misplaced: this type of >information is considered to be in the public domain. You can buy it on >tape/whatever for business purposes direct from the state. Actually, in Oregon I don't think there is any restriction as to what purposes you ask for the information. I've never filled out such a request before (preferring to get my data from a CDROM which tells no tales...) but as I understand it there's no restriction. (Other than legality?!?) > There are lots >of people who I don't want to have any information about me who can get >what's on file down at the Mass Registry of Motor Vehicles. That's the way >it works. > >Now, there's lots of times when it would have been nice to have access to >that information myself. Use your imagination. Why should the public be >denied the right to access this information when businesses have had that >privilege for some time? I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to be >taken away from businesses, either, though I suppose the states will now >pass laws prohibiting the public dissemination of this data. I've pointed out elsewhere that our goal should be the elimination of the collection of this data by the state in the first place, an appropriately radical idea. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0