December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: [NOISE] I never knew that Dimitri Vulis was a net.legend
by jbugden＠smtplink.alis.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Timothy C. May" <tcmay(a)got.net> wrote: >And here I thought it was the real history of the Net, especially the part >about how "the dandruff-covered Peter Vorobieff (spit) conspired with the >purebred Sovok Valery Fabrikant (spit) to spread the lies of the Jew >cripples dying of AIDS in Sovok-controlled clinics." >(hint: this a satire, based on the writings of Vulis, who speaks of people >as "lying purebred Sovok Tchurkas" (whatever _they_ are), and attaches >the charming word "(spit)" after nearly every person he references.) Just last week Concordia University in Montreal unveiled four new art installations; one dedicated to the memory of each of the four professors shot and killed by Valery Fabrikant. The works are in the form of tables so that they can be integrated with the student body. Raving on the net does occasionally have physical manifestations. Prend soin, James

1 0

Goodbye
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Goodbye I am leaving cypherpunks for a while, perhaps forever. Why should anyone handle a high volume list as a list and not as a newsgroup? Our tools for handling newgroups are superior to our tools for handling mailing lists. The reason to prefer mailing lists is that the very inconvenience keeps out the ignorant masses. Word initially spreads person to person, and intelligent and highly motivated people make most of the contributions, Thus the glory days of cypherpunks, an insider club of the best and brightest, far superior to the common herd, where we planned and organized for a world where the ignorant masses can no longer rob and harass their superiors, a world where the elite can live the good life in freedom and comfort and abandon the useless worthless masses to wander blindly into ruin, despair, and slavery, lost in a world they cannot understand, and will no longer have the power to smash. In those days we forged the weapons and planned the strategies, defending the net against the enemies of freedom. But with the passage of time, we got the same half human trash as you encounter in the newsgroups, and less satisfactory tools to filter them. The glory days are long past, and cannot be revived by forming a new mailing list. Perhaps I will see you guys on Usenet, by and by. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

2 1

RE: USPS electronic postmark
by James A. Tunnicliffe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Jonathan Litt[SMTP:littlitt@MIT.EDU] wrote: >Today I was at the Internet Expo in Boston and I sent myself a >postmarked email from the USPS booth. It is enclosed below for all to >scrutinize. >[...snip...] >I will also paraphrase something that was said by one of the people at >the booth: > > "We always send the message itself as an attachment. The message that > you see at first shows the postmark, and warns you not to open the > attachment if you are not the intended recipient. Just as with normal > mail, it is a federal crime to double click on the attachment to view > the contents of the message if the message is not for you." >[...snip...] >As stated above, here is the message in its entirety, exactly as it >arrived in my mailbox. Below that is the base64 decoded for your >convenience. (Official USPS warning:) >[...]If you are not the intended >recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, dissemination, >distribution, or copying of this message is prohibited. > >Only littlitt(a)mit.edu may view the enclosed message. [...unauthorized federally-protected not-for-your-eyes message deleted...] >Aaaugghh! I accidentally viewed the message! Now I'm a federal criminal! (A >veritable Public Enemy, I guess, given my additional crime of wearing my RSA >"munitions" shirt in full view of people who may well be dangerous foreign >nationals.) > >If I go down for this, I'm taking you with me, Jonathan. > >Tunny >====================================================================== > James A. Tunnicliffe | WWWeb: http://www.inference.com/~tunny > Inference Corporation | PGP Fingerprint: CA 23 E2 F3 AC 2D 0C 77 > tunny(a)Inference.com | 36 07 D9 33 3D 32 53 9C >====================================================================== > >

1 0

NAVAHO
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As most all on this list are aware, the U.S. Army made frequent and successful use of our indigenous people (often Navaho) for battle field communications during WW II. Now obviously Navaho is a widely recognized language and even our 'oppressive" government wouldn't dare tell such speakers, who might be under investigation for some alledged criminal activity, that were engaging in international communications that they could not use this or a similar form of communciation because LE might not be able to interpret its meaning. What would be the legal status of communicating with a language, too complex for easy human use, which required a computer to structure and translate between other human languages? What would be the ITAR implication of exporting such linguistic software? What about speaking or writing riddles or other 'indirect' coding in which the true meaning of spoken or written communication is other than the appearent (literature, especially mysteries have them)? Could export of software designed to create/interpret such riddles or 'hidden' meanings come under ITAR regulation? -- Steve PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Snoop Daty Data | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Grinder | Sacred Cow Meat Co. | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Counter-cultural technology development our specialty. Vote Libertarian. Just say NO to prescription DRUGS. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis "Surveillence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential entertainment." -- G. Beato

2 1

Anonymous Auth Certificates [was: Re: Blinded Identities]
by Carl Ellison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

P.S. you might also check out http://www.clark.net/pub/cme/usenix.html for more on why ID certificates are useless in any case. - Carl +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Carl M. Ellison cme(a)acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | |PGP: E0414C79B5AF36750217BC1A57386478 & 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2| | "Officer, officer, arrest that man! He's whistling a dirty song." | +-------------------------------------------- Jean Ellison (aka Mother) -+

1 0

SKIP cryptanalysis?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone looked into SKIP key management? I'm aware of Jeff Schiller's statement about OAKLEY/ISAKMP being the more flexible, useful system to be the main standard for IPsec. Adam -- "Every year the Republicans campaign like Libertarians, and then go to Wasthington and spend like Democrats." Vote Harry Browne for President. http://www.harrybrowne96.org

1 0

Re: YES OR NO?
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:45 AM 10/17/96 -0700, you wrote: >On Thu, 17 Oct 1996, Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > >> It is a great honor to meet a net.legent in person. > >I hope Dimitri will stop hidding behind his computer and "honor" >us with his presence at an SF Bay area Cypherpunks meeting. I've >got pledges for nearly $1200 to bring him out here to speak. All >we need now is a serious response from Dimitri. I guess when the >going gets tough, the "net legends" get yellow. What are you >afraid of Dimitri? I can understand what he has to be afraid of. It is one thing to be a harassing bastard on the net. It is another to have to defend your actions to those people face to face. Dimitri has made insulting remarks about myself and good friends. He has been abusive and obnoxious all over the face of the net. I can see how some people might take that personally. (I would not do him personal harm. Ask him why he feels he needs to be a flaming asshole maybe...) I killfiled Dimitri because there was no use talking to him and no use listening to him. Currently he has taken the tact of posting news when his reputation capitol reaches into the heavy negative numbers. (And I still filter them all into the trash because I cannot trust him to not forge the posts into something containing something the author did not write or intend.) There are others I do not argue with for other, similar, reasons. It is pointless to debate with the closed minded and the compulsive flamers. (If I wanted to listen to compulsive juvenile flame I would go hang out on WWIV BBSes. It least there you know the people are probably fourteen, not just acting like it...) The only purpose such debate will ever serve is to influence the onlookers. The point is probably moot anyways. I doubt if I will get to any of the California meetings any time in the near future. (Work is hell, but at least it pays something. Unlike the regular brand of hell.) --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

EUP_hem
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

10-17-96. WaPo: "U.S. Considers Slugging It Out With International Terrorism" Officials contend that the main threat now comes from a murky network of home-grown, privately financed and largely independent groups forming a kind of international "terrorists' Internet." That network is proving extremely difficult for U.S. intelligence agencies to locate and penetrate. "Today's terrorists don't have to depend that much any more on states for access to financing or the technological means." "Postal Service Plans to Leave Its Mark on Electronic Mail" Cylink is developing a system for electronically postmarking and encrypting computer messages and Sun and Enterprise Productivity are developing software that will allow bulk mailers to calculate the price of mail shipments on the Internet. The Postal Service predicted that the new system ultimately will account for $5 billion in postage a year, about 9 percent of all postage. ----- http://jya.com/euphem.txt (18 kb for 2) ftp://jya.com/pub/incoming/euphem.txt EUP_hem

1 0

ITAR/real law, copyright
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sorry for the rushed character of this note - am working on another project which is eating up my available time. I just wanted to respond because I think Tim and Marshall are talking about different ends of the same process. At 03:37 PM 10/16/96 -0800, Tim May wrote: >At 10:56 AM -0700 10/16/96, Marshall Clow wrote: >>A) This is not a change in the law. There is no law regarding export of >>encryption software. >>Congress has never passed any such law. These are State Department >>regulations, and presidential decrees. These regulations, which have the >>force of law to you and me, were never debated or voted upon by our >>elected representatives. They can be changed tomorrow the same way. In >>fact, they can be changed and the public need not even be notified. > >Actually, as Greg Broiles pointed out in an article (on the Cypherpunks >list) several weeks ago, Congress deliberately chooses to delegate much >regulatory authority to other agencies. As I understand the export-license process, there are multiple steps: 1. Commodity jurisdiction request: State Dept decides if ITAR controls the export of the item (e.g., is it a "defense article" or a "defense service" or "technical data", and not public domain, etc.)? 2. If ITAR does control the export, the State Dept decides (based on the characteristics of the item and the identity/location of the foreign recipient and the opinion(s) of other agencies consulted) whether or not to allow the export. The fact that these steps must be taken (and the general procedure for doing so) is a product of the Arms Export Control Act (passed by Congress, at 22 USC 2778 and thereabouts) and the ITARs (22 CFR 120 et seq), administrative regulations promulgated by the Dept of State. (To change the ITARs themselves, State Dept must publish notice of the proposed changes and solicit public comments, as well as make the final regs public in the CFRs and via the Federal Register). So the ITARs are "real laws", at least as real as any others. But the process by which these steps (deciding what will be a "munition", deciding whether or not a particular item is within one of those defined as munitions, deciding whether or not to allow an export) are taken involves policy choices whose motives and processes are not entirely clear, and which can be (and are) changed by the executive branch without notice or opportunity to comment. What I'm thinking of here are the rules like "40-bit RC4 is OK" and "3DES is never OK" and "56-bit DES with GAK is OK" and "disk bad, OCR text OK" which we're discovering through trial & error but are not, to my knowledge, part of the ITARs or elsewhere in the CFR or the USC. Also, Dept of State's decisions about individual exports and items are not subject to judicial review, by 22 USC 2778(h), an interpretation which is being challenged in the appeal in _Karn_. Interested readers might take a look at the district court's opinion in _Karn_ at <http://venable.com/oracle/oracle7.htm> and Stewart Baker's analysis of it at <http://www.us.net/~steptoe/summary.htm>. I think my understanding of the ITAR process is mediocre at best, I certainly welcome correction or clarification, although Jim Bell's predictable and wholly incorrect assertion that administrative regs only apply to government employees would be funny but for the fact that I know ordinary people (not government employees) who have been convicted of violating federal admin regs and the fines they paid (or are still paying), jail time spent, etc were all too real. My summary of admin law is deliberately vague because frankly admin law isn't my strong suit. Perhaps another list member with a superior understanding will fill in the gaps in my summaries. Also, Sean Sutherland wrote to ask (re the SPA's position on copyright liability): >I'm curious, do the Contributory Infringment >and the Vicarious Liability for Infringment By Another Person claims have any >legal basis, or are they just the inane rantings they appear to be? I sent a long message to the list a few days ago (Sunday?) discussing contributory infringement. The short version of the message is "Yes, contributory infringement is valid, but not necessarily in this particular case". And ditto for vicarious liability, although I think vicarious liability isn't even plausibly arguable. They are neither novel nor especially remarkable facets of copyright law, although as Sean notes they do not have explicit textual support in the Copyright act. Vicarious liability is an extension of the legal doctrine of "respondeat superior", e.g., an employer/principal is liable for the actions of an employee/agent for actions taken within the scope of employment/agency. Contributory infringement is an extension of the principles of enterprise liability, where (very generally) people who undertake a common purpose/project will share liability, even where only one party directly caused the actual harm. _Sony v. Universal City Studios_ 464 US 417, 435 (1984). Nimmer on Copyright 12.04[A] notes that it's possible to read 17 USC 106's grant of the exclusive right to "authorize" the exercise of the other exclusive rights as excluding the authorization of infringement by third parties (making the illicit authorizer a direct infringer). But that reading seems awfully technical, and Nimmer cites no cases which rely on it (and later describes it as "overly facile"). In any event, yes, vicarious liability and contributory infringement are viable theories of recovery, but neither seems especially promising. Matt Ghio wrote and asked if a direct infringement must exist before a third party can be held liable for infringement. Nimmer (a relatively authoritative treatise on copyright) argues that it should not be possible to have third party liability without a direct infringement, with a reference to cases I haven't had time to look at yet. (at 12.04[A][3][a], if anyone's fortunate enough to have a copy of Nimmer at hand) -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

1 0

EC patent
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Thu, 17 Oct 1996 14:03:34 +0800 From: James Lee <jlee(a)ccl.itri.org.tw> Reply-To: jlee(a)ccl.itri.org.tw Organization: Internet Tech Div, Computer & Communication Lab, Indudtrial Technology Research Institute Mime-Version: 1.0 To: set-discuss(a)commerce.net Subject: EC patent Sender: owner-set-talk(a)commerce.NET Precedence: bulk +----------------------------------------------------+ Addressed to: set-discuss(a)commerce.net +----------------------------------------------------+ I heard that CitiBank has filed for a patent in Japan with 140+ claims covering many aspects of electronic commerce, security electronic transaction, etc. Does anyone know more about it? What impact will it bring to all SET members? James Lee Director, Internet Technology Division Computer & Communication Laboratories Industrial Technology Research Institute W000/CCL, 195 Chunghsin Rd., Sec. 4, Chutung, TAIWAN 886-3-591-4533(W) 886-3-582-0085(Fax) jlee(a)ccl.itri.org.tw ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This message was sent by set-discuss(a)commerce.net. For a complete listing of available commands, please send mail to 'majordomo(a)commerce.net' with 'help' (no quotations) contained within the body of your message. --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

1 0