December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

WORD Mail: A Part of Our Lives...
by wiechman＠iconnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friends of Word [http://www.word.com] Two things: 1. Word has been nominated for 3 (three) of the 1996 Cool Site of the Year Awards (Cool Site of the Year, Cool Design of the Year, and Cool Web Designer of the Year). Please vote for us. We're literally begging you. Does this seem desperate? Cool Site of the Year is located at http://cool.infi.net/vote.html 2. Please check out Word [http://www.word.com] Right now you can experience our special feature "Guyana," a super-deluxe documentary about three NYC artists' (Bob Braine, Mark Dion, and Alexis Rockman) six-week trek through the Amazon jungle. It's got art, animation, text, and an original score. Sort of like a movie. But not. Anyway, it's real good. Mmmmm! Truly Yours, WORD 3. I know we said there would only be two things, but we just thought we should mention that if you've requested to be removed from our mailing list, it *will* happen very soon. We've had a bit of trouble keeping everything up to date. Word swears to remove you from the list.

1 0

Scoring Politicians on Digital Liberty Issues (Re: Net Politics)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(I have no idea where the virtual nexus of this debate is taking place...I see these addresses copied on the message to which I'm replying: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, brock(a)well.com, telstar(a)wired.com, shabbir(a)vtw.org, jseiger(a)cdt.org (Jonah Seiger), Declan McCullagh <declan(a)eff.org>. I despise such massive cross-contamination of lists and duplication of messages, so I will delete all but the list I am part of, and Jonah Seiger, out of courtesy, as it his message I am replying to.) At 2:23 PM 8/27/96, Jonah Seiger wrote: >"One more round of 'work within the system' vs 'up against the wall!'," he >said. > >This is an important debate that unfortunately seems to be dividing the >net.community when we most need to be united. All of us working on >net-policy issues share a common vision and goals - promoting the free flow >of information, preserving and enhancing First Amendment values and >protecting individual privacy. There are, for better or worse, many >different views on the best way to accomplish those objectives, and the >debate over who has the right tactics seems to frequently escalate in to >religious war. > >Meanwhile, our opponents are well organized, determined, and do a much >better job of keeping their internal strategic differences to themselves. >Perhaps this is part of the reason they keep kicking our butts all over >town. I think it laudable that CDT has chosen to remain in D.C. to "work within the system." Personally, I could never stomach doing this. Nor do I think the Cypherpunks group per se should do it; technological monkeywrenching of the best-laid plans of Leahy, Swinestein, and all the other "mice and men" is so much more effective and satisfying. Yes, as far as legislation goes, the politicians are constantly on the offensive, proposing new and more draconian legislation on a continuing basis. Maybe they hope to wear us out, to create battle fatigue (some say it worked with EFF, but I've heard various reasons given as to why EFF left D.C.). But technology also is winning, in its own way. Web proxies defeat national governments in their plans to limit access. Remailers have transformed the Net. Digital pseudonyms have restored anonymous commentaries to their once-honored place. And the sheer growth of the Net, the Web, and the vast number of connections has made Leahy- and Exon-style control essentially hopeless to enforce. On the specific issue of whether Sen. Leahy is or is not a "friend of the Net," to use him as an example here, I suggest a different approach. Instead of classifying Leahy as a friend or an enemy, or Burns as a friend or an enemy, etc., why not a *ratings system*? As with the "perfect 100%" liberal ratings that the ACLU or somesuch puts out... Thus, we can say "Conrad Burns has scored a 67% on Digital Liberty issues, Patrick Leahy has scored a 42% on these issues, and Dianne Feinstein scored 17%." Determination would have to be made on what the important issues, but this has been done successfully in the past, as with the liberal groups and union groups (and conservative/NRA/family values groups) who "score" candidates. A scoring system has the advantage of looking relatively impartial, and avoids the "friend/enemy" naming, at least in terms of personalities. Thus, one can say to Leahy, "Sorry, Senator, this is just how you score. If you want to score higher in the future, take careful note of what our community thinks is important and vote accordingly." The issues for a scorecard might be accumulated on the Net, with inputs from CDT, VTW, EFF, Cypherpunks, and other interested groups. It could be messy, but perhaps not. Even a *simple* set of principles, picked by almost any of these organizations, would likely be enough to get a reasonable scoring system...it's not as if we all don't know that Leahy's support for the Digital Telephony Bill was a major downcheck--whatever the realpolitik issues were--and that his support of Pro-Code is a major upcheck. The value of scoring is that it takes out the often-painful issues of classifying politicians as "friends" or "enemies." Objective scoring means never having to say you're sorry. --Tim may -- [This Bible excerpt awaiting review under the U.S. Communications Decency Act of 1996] And then Lot said, "I have some mighty fine young virgin daughters. Why don't you boys just come on in and fuck them right here in my house - I'll just watch!"....Later, up in the mountains, the younger daughter said: "Dad's getting old. I say we should fuck him before he's too old to fuck." So the two daughters got him drunk and screwed him all that night. Sure enough, Dad got them pregnant, and had an incestuous bastard son....Onan really hated the idea of doing his brother's wife and getting her pregnant while his brother got all the credit, so he pulled out before he came....Remember, it's not a good idea to have sex with your sister, your brother, your parents, your pet dog, or the farm animals, unless of course God tells you to. [excerpts from the Old Testament, Modern Vernacular Translation, TCM, 1996]

1 0

Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While I, on the other hand, am surprised by your over-optimistic tone. Bills in Congress are, technically, ALWAYS up for public comment. And yes, they are almost always subject to amendment. But the REALITY (remember reality?!?) is that once a bill has been officially introduced in Congress, it is substantially more difficult to add a good part, or remove a bad part, than if the bill remained on a word-processor or was simply put on the 'net for comments. The status-quo system might have made sense in the pre-Internet era, when the public familiarity of issues and/or legislation was less, or communication costs to the public were higher, etc. But today, when it's easy and cheap to put the text of a proposed bill on the Internet, it simply no longer makes sense to not accept public comment BEFORE the "high-hysteresis" environment of Congress has been entered. Here's what is REALLY going on. Congress wants to maintain the illusion that the public actually has some input into the way bills are drafted. But in reality, they want essentially total control. One of the many biases inserted into the system to ensure this control is maintained is to disguise the extent to which special interests (and Congress, itself, is a "special interest") get to dictate how law reads. Consider the alternative, and in particular the Leahy crypto bill, and even more particularly the portion of that bill criminalizing the use of encryption in a way which thwarts an investigation. Suppose the pieces of entire bill, before actual filing, had been publicly posted on the Internet, and there had been either a vote or at least a collection of comments about the individual proposed sections. What would have happened? That portion of the bill would have gotten flamed and rejected, with a large majority opposing it. Moreover, we would all have KNOWN that it had been rejected. At that point, if Leahy still insisted on including it, it would be tantamount to giving the 'net his middle finger, and we would have rightly lambasted Leahy, as he deserved. Moreover, we would have known that someone was pushing that part of the bill, and could reasonably insist that he is identified. But the way Leahy actually proposed it, in a package that had been put together in secret, it isn't clear how much Leahy detests our opinions, and he might actually have gotten away with foisting this on us. See the difference? An open system holds legislators to a much higher standard, which is why they don't like it and is why we should insist on it. An open system reveals to the public if their interests are being followed. An open system will allow more people to become aware of being screwed by politicians, maybe even before it happens, and it will allow them to reject legislative proposals which contain undesirable portions, particularly portions which are written into a bill despite opposition. _THAT_ could, hypothetically, become the "legislative process" someday. In fact, it SHOULD BE the legislative process. I consider the current system illegitimate to the extent (at least!) that it is biased against public participation. At 08:51 AM 8/27/96 -0400, John Raffetto wrote: >Jim -- I'm surprised by your message. Members of Congress rarely introduce >bills and say take it or leave it. Rather, by introducing a bill, they're >offering it up for public comment. After introduction, the bill is referred >to a committee, and perhaps a subcommittee, where there are hearings and the >like. The lobbyists swarm in, constituent letters roll in. Then the bill >is marked up in committee, and emerges in a revised form. > >If you want to vet a proposed piece of legislation on the Internet, then >copy the text off of THOMAS and post it... then participate in the >legislative process. > >John Raffetto > > >> >>I believe that it is particularly suspicious that these bills come into >>existance without even cursory "vetting" on the Internet. Both the Leahy >>bill and even the Burns crypto bill popped into public view without any >>indication of how they were written, or any public input on their intent and >>scope. Perhaps this "take it or leave it" practice is old hat to >>politicians, but frankly I'm disgusted at politicians' presumption that they >>can prepare a law with no identifiable input from the public. >> >>I am similarly disgusted at any organization (even if, ostensibly, acting in >>support of "net freedom") that assisted in the development of the Leahy >>crypto bill (and to some extent, even the Burns bill) because they clearly >>failed to solicit the kind of public input that such bills should >>automatically get. >> >>And in a sense, "the Net" doesn't NEED "strong supporters": what we need are >>politicians who are willing to LEAVE US ALONE! It should come as no >>surprise that the call you frequently see among net-freedom- supporters for >>new legislation is that which repeals existing restrictive laws, such as >>ITAR and censorship laws. >> >>Jim Bell >>jimbell(a)pacifier.com >> >> > > > > Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: Discussion: The Digital Commerce Clause [Long] [Was: Re: The Commerce Clause and the Crypto Issue]
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Black Unicorn > >I believe the answer to preserving the purity of digital commerce is to >form it in such a way so as to make regulation impossible, because in my >view the constitution no longer provides citizens with the protection or >freedom to progress. I feel the same way about privacy. All the >constitutional arguments in the world mean little today. A systematic >approach which makes violations of personal rights impossible whether >constitutional or not is the answer. >..................................................... > > >I, like others on the list, have often misunderstood your references to court >cases and other legal stuff as indicators that you were being pessimistic, >discouraging, and presenting obstacles to free-thinking, imaginative ideas. > >The way in which you expressed yourself left out your true inclinations on >the subjects, and it would only be someone who had read a large number of >your posts who would realize what side of the issues you are really on. > >I agree very much with what you say in the above paragraph about the >constitutional arguments [by jove, I think he's got it :>)] So many times >people (especially libertarian types) will present their protests in >reference to constitutional issues. Yet there are some contradictions within >the Constitution, or areas which sound that way, and which are therefore too >easily misconstrued by present thinkers (judges, lawyers, etc.). > >So often the document is referred to like a magic mantra which is going to >take away the ills and boogeymen by waving it in front of their faces. But >the document is not so well read, understood, nor respected by those in >public office. It isn't used as a guide to move towards more self-reliance >rather than less. I have heard from one political potentiate that his >opponent (already in office) had not ever even read it. > >You can't depend upon adherence to the Constitution to create the reality >you're after (although, like a dart-shoot, you can always try and it does, >after all, supply the basics for the established legal procedures and it's >possible to set the fear of it upon government types by setting their feet to >its fire - if you can pay for it). > >(This gives me a sense of deja-vu: I think you and I had a long argument >about this on the list, once.) > > .. >Blanc > > >

2 1

Re: Sen. Leahy's "impeccable cyberspace credentials"
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 27 Aug 96 at 21:16, jim bell wrote: > See the difference? An open system holds legislators to a much > higher standard, which is why they don't like it and is why we > should insist on it. Fine Jim, but how? Any idea of a system that could lead to that? JFA who's ROTFL! DePompadour, Societe d'Importation Ltee; Limoges porcelain, silverware and crystal JFA Technologies, R&D consultants: physicists, technologists and engineers. PGP keys at: http://w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon ID# C58ADD0D : 529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891

1 0

Re: FYI: GOP's Stolen Laptop...
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:41 PM 8/27/96 -0500, Andrew Loewenstern <andrew_loewenstern(a)il.us.swissbank.com> wrote: >> They should have used PGP on those files..... > >...but I thought fine, upstanding, and law-abiding citizens didn't have >anything to hide... These are _Republicans_, Andrew! :-) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # <A HREF="http://idiom.com/~wcs"> Reassign Authority!

1 0

An open letter to the Editor of The Observer
by matthew＠itconsult.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[I understand the text of the Observer article is available at http://www.hclb.demon.co.uk/obs.txt] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I. T. Consultancy Limited Our reference L2217 The Editor The Observer 119 Farringdon Road London EC1R 3ER 26 August 1996 AN OPEN LETTER FOR PUBLICATION Sir, I read with some interest the article by David Connett and Jon Henley in yesterday's edition regarding the Internet and child pornography. I was particularly interested as I am a computer consultant advising clients on Internet issues. In my professional opinion, the technical standard of the reporting was sufficiently poor as to be both inaccurate and misleading. The purpose of this letter is to clarify certain technical issues which might cause your readers to reach unfounded or incorrect conclusions. It is important to be aware of the various methods by which information generally (which can include pornography) is distributed around the Internet. Your article focuses on one particular route, namely Newsgroups. It is Newsgroups which are detailed in the Metropolitan Police's letter to Internet Providers and which are concentrated upon by your article. There are several other means of distributing information. I believe however that the Police letter lists fewer than the 150 groups referred to by the authors. Interestingly enough Newsgroups only offer the means of broadcasting information to anyone who wants to retrieve it. The authors do not appear to have a sufficient grasp of what a "remailer" does. For example they seem to draw a direct link between the use of such remailers and people being able to "log on and participate in 'live' and 'interactive' filmed sessions". A lay reader would perhaps draw the inference that the remailer is somehow involved in any such live participation. Unfortunately this could not be further from the truth. Remailers simply allow people to post messages, either as email to other people or to Newsgroups for general reading. Nothing more. Remailers are generally incapable of being "logged on" to. Your article also refers to "remailing companies", from which the lay reader might infer that remailers are operated for commercial profit. Such an inference would again be wholly incorrect. I know of no organisation operating a remailer for profit, indeed none of them even charge for their services. They are generally run by individuals on a voluntary basis who consider them as a service to the Internet community. Your article appears not to mention any of the purposes of such remailers other than in terms of the distribution of pornography. In my view it would be difficult to present a balanced article without doing so. Different remailers take different steps to prevent whatever their operators consider as "abuse". My understanding is that Mr. Helsingius' service restricts messages to 48k bytes (or characters) and prohibits postings to the "binaries" newsgroups designated for images. I also understand that it only allows 30 messages per user per day. At a technical level these restrictions would make it almost impossible to use his service for mass distribution of any binary data, not just pornography. It therefore appears surprising to me that your article should allege that Mr. Helsingius' remailer is responsible for handling "90 per cent of all child pornography" on the Internet. I wonder what substantiating evidence The Observer has to this effect other than the alleged claim by Toby Tyler. Indeed it appears from your article that the words "is supplied through this remailer" may not be a direct quote from Toby Tyler. Your article alleges that "the photographs made available to Demon's subscribers through the Internet are supplied anonymously by remailing companies". The lay reader might infer from this that all photographs therefore come via remailers. Again this would be far from the truth. Finally I hope this letter offers some assistance to your readers in clarifying a number of issues which were perhaps less than clear in your article. Given your newspaper's difficulties with technical issues, I would be grateful if you would kindly refer any editing of this letter to me prior to publication. Yours faithfully, Matthew Richardson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQCVAgUBMiFvEAKwLwcHEv69AQGjIQP+IGR9rhvdYXe7CuCcwPl/tIrIBryikTM2 IVOpygTF2nCPf3WEJ8czRvs1emp9d9d++69XiG1f6QAeP9Jv/h9KzVtV7mjjuqCX LhlhXBYjLIiGCcxljKZ07zHFlCeZWCzuAmIFnZbz2fNNjqyicheIMlxI2tDrGgjp dlaGZuAI2XY= =dkXg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

[Fwd: Re: Code Review Guidelines (draft)]
by Wendell Lee 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

unsubcribe wendell(a)singnet.com.sg To: hag(a)ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: Code Review Guidelines (draft) From: lists(a)lina.inka.de (Bernd Eckenfels) Date: Wed, 28 Aug 1996 03:30:49 +0200 (MET DST) Cc: ichudov(a)algebra.com, adam(a)homeport.org, firewalls(a)greatcircle.com, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, coderpunks(a)toad.com In-Reply-To: <199608272111.RAA23997(a)galapas.ai.mit.edu> from "Daniel Hagerty" at Aug 27, 96 05:11:39 pm Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com Hi, > Much better, look at rfc822. (I wouldn't consider *anything* that > has the word "sendmail" in it a good reference). its much better if you dont rely on the content of the string at all. Dont use sh -c or system and you will be save. Simply asume that all characters are valid in user suplied strings and treat them exactly that way... If they need to be exporeted then unfortunately they need to be 'untainted' and this should be done by positive not negative lists as mentioned in the guidelines. Greetings Bernd PS: I have collected the references on http://www.inka.de/sites/lina/freefire-l/ -- (OO) -- Bernd_Eckenfels(a)Wittumstrasse13.76646Bruchsal.de -- ( .. ) ecki(a){lina.inka.de,linux.de} http://home.pages.de/~eckes/ o--o *plush* 2048/A2C51749 eckes@irc +4972573817 *plush* (O____O) If privacy is outlawed only Outlaws have privacy

1 0

Re: Australian Interbet Betting System Gets US Interest 08/26/96
by Mark Neely 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>CentreBet can be reached at http://www.taunet.com.au/centrebet BTW .. that is //www.taunet.net.au/centrebet ^^^ Regards, Mark ___ Mark Neely - accessnt(a)ozemail.com.au Lawyer, Internet Consultant, Professional Cynic Author: Australian Beginner's Guide to the Internet (2nd Ed.) Australian Business Guide to the Internet Internet Guide for Teachers, Students & Parents Check out my Anti-SPAM FAQ: http://www.accessnt.com.au/faqs/spam.htm

1 0

Identification docs needed.
by John C. Randolph 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

c'punks, Sorry for the off-topic post, but I think that the resourceful people on this list might be able to help. I have a friend here in NYC who is in a bit of a bind, because she has *no* id. Her birth was never recorded (i.e. no birth certificate!) So, the question is: Anyone have any suggestions as to how one could obtain documentation that would pass muster with the local passport office? I'm hoping to help her obtain the documentation she needs to get on an airplane without gaining too much attention from the JBT's. BTW, she was born a US citizen in Puerto Rico. Baptismal records may be forthcoming, but that isn't certain. advTHANKSance, -jcr

1 0