December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Insider Trading - What constitutes "Disclosure" ?
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is not legal advice. You got it for free. Often the choice faced by the investor who has material non-public information is characterized as "disclose or abstain," meaning that the investor may either trade after disclosing or abstain from trading on the information. A few people have asked me what constitutes disclosure. I've not researched the latest cases, but the generally accepted "best description" can be found in SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulpher Co., 401 F.2d 833 (2d Cir.1968), cert. denied. As to the defense's claim that their purchases of stock were not proscribed because the news had effectively been disclosed, the court offered: (errors mine) Crawford (defendant) telephoned his orders to his Chicago broker about midnight on April 15 and again at 8:30 in the morning of the 16th, with instructions to buy at the opening of the Midwest Stock Exchange. The trial court's finding that "he sought to, and did, 'beat the news,' 258 F.Supp. at 287, is well documented by the record.. The rumors of a major ore strike which had been circulated in Canada and , to a lesser extent, in New York, had been disclaimed by the TGS press release of April 12, which significantly promised the public an official detailed announcement when possibilities had ripened into actualities. The abbreviated announcement to the Canadian press at 9:40 A.M. on the 16th by the Ontario Minister of Mines and the report carried by the Northern Miner, parts of which had sporadically reached New York on the morning of the 16th through reports from Canadian affiliates to a few New York investment firms, are assuredly not the equivalent of the official 10-15 minute announcement which was not released to teh American financial press until after 10:00 AM. Crawford's orders had been placed before that. **Before insiders may act upon material information, such information must have been effectively disclosed in a manner sufficient to insure its availability to the investing public.** Particularly here, whre a formal announcement to the entire financial news media had been promised in a prior official release known to the media, all insider activity must await dissemination of the promised official announcement. Coates was absolved by the court below because his telephone order was placed shortly before 10:20 AM on April 16, which was after the announcement had been made public even though the news could not be considered already a matter of public information. 258 F.Supp at 288. This result seems to have been predicated upon a misinterpretation of dicta in Cady, Roberts, where the SEC instructed insiders to "keep out of the market until the estlablished procedures for public release of the information are carried out instead of hastening to execute transactions in advance of, and in frustration of, the objectives of the release," 40 S.E.C. at 915. The reading of a news release, which promoted Coates into action, is merely the first step in the process of dissemination required for compliance with the regulatory objective of providing all investors with an equal opportuinity to make informed investment judgements. Assuming that the contents of the official release could have been instantaneously be acted upon, at the minimum Coates should have waited until the news could reasonably have been expcted to appear over the media of widest circulation, the Dow Jones broad tape, rather than hastening to insure an advantage to himself and his broker son-in-law. -- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn(a)schloss.li

1 0

PGP plugin for Netscape?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I could swear I read something about a PGP plugin called livepgp, and Altavista can't find it, and I can't glimpse it in my archives of the list. Anyone got a pointer? Please post to the list; making it more likely that a search engine will find this in the future, and we won't get a rash of 'me toos.' Thanks, Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Re: AP [was: Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet] [NOISE]
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:24 AM 9/24/96 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote: >Lessee if I have this right, now. We have basically three scenarios: > >1. Allow the status quo to continue (the justice system scam now run by > Janet Reno/Louis Freeh types et al. >2. Allow the people some democracy in applying justice through AP. >3. Sometime in the future, build the Gort(?) robots, as in The Day The > Earth Stood Still, and let them do the job. > >Whatcha think? That's about it. I long ago noticed the similarity between AP and the fictional Gort. Problem is, Gort would have to be programmed. How would you write such a program? Governments would want their hand in it. They'd insist on "government exceptions" to rules, like: "All violence is forbiddden! (except for violence by duly authorized government employees!)" Not very practical. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: An idle thought on CBC and block lengths
by PhneCards＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Did you know this company is using your email address as part of an unlawful email bomb? I would advise you to write to them at cypherpunks(a)toad.com and owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com and advise them to stop using your email address for this type of activity. It is illegal to use a invalid return email address. If this continues, I will be forced to prosecute the return email address - which they are making to look like you. Below is the letter that I received in my email box ================================================= In a message dated 96-09-25 15:52:17 EDT, you write: >Subj: An idle thought on CBC and block lengths >Date: 96-09-25 15:52:17 EDT >From: osborne(a)gateway.grumman.com (Rick Osborne) >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >So I was sitting bored at home and thinking to myself: CBC is cool. >Without the key, you're screwed because a single bit error propagates >throughout the entire message. But then I was thinking, yeah, but you can >still eventually get the ONE key. So I began to wonder what the difference >in security is between encrypting an entire M with just one K in CBC, or >encrypting M with permutations of K over specific block lengths. > >On the one hand you've got just one key, which makes it that much harder to >find in the keyspace. On the other hand, If evil interloper Eve gets her >hands it, she has to find all of the keys to get all of M. (Assuming she >is using brute force and can't necessarily find the master K to permute >into the subkeys.) > >The downsides are of course that on the one side you've got just one key, >and once you get it, you get M. But on the other hand, you can get any one >part of the message with less difficulty because of the higher number of >keys. And, of course, if your master K is easy to brute force, then it's >actually worse than the first option. > >Does anyone have opinions / knowledge of which is better? > > >____________________________________________________________ >Rick Osborne osborne(a)gateway.grumman.com >"The universe doesn't give you any points for doing things that are easy." > > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed Sep 25 15:51:46 1996 >Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com >Received: from mailhub.MyMail.Com (mailhub.mymail.com [206.247.118.1]) by >emin14.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA04207 for ><phnecards(a)aol.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:51:43 -0400 >Received: from toad.com by mailhub.MyMail.Com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) > id AA27411; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:47:22 -0600 >Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA16059 for >cypherpunks-outgoing; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 05:57:39 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from gateway.grumman.com (gateway.grumman.com [192.86.71.8]) by >toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA16054 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Wed, >25 Sep 1996 05:57:32 -0700 (PDT) >Message-Id: <3.0b19.32.19960925085644.0068cb90(a)gateway.grumman.com> >X-Sender: osborne(a)gateway.grumman.com >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0b19 (32) >Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 08:56:45 -0400 >To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >From: Rick Osborne <osborne(a)gateway.grumman.com> >Subject: An idle thought on CBC and block lengths >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk

2 1

Newsgroup proposal: misc.anonymous
by Mark M. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In an effort to get anonymity and message pools more widespread, I think it would be a good idea to establish a newsgroup for anonymous message pools that would get the same distribution as any other newsgroup in the "big 8". The "misc" hierarchy is probably the best place for such a newsgroup since it already carries groups like "misc.misc" and "misc.test". Does anyone have any suggestions or objections? Mark - -- PGP encrypted mail prefered. Key fingerprint = d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348 http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3 Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBMknvNSzIPc7jvyFpAQHnmAf/SmvkV71/p3V2ZzCZApBk2TXD3wVifxi/ ljjRcuaGGs/iDJ1xKuTDGj5qIicM3Y3CSsnedS2g15RtAIpU7IdBKNsa4D55F2vI TJSElzqoqPMlAQRLq45v92DlG9d5zQopfqlT9bkGXZ1DDfTGg2q+F0HUqLYAZC1r DVU+iShjWUjX+0qxvKDClXSLLizdz6QHjTUTuE0PEdYf03KI0rqt/Dceh3iU2BWm bHYS20mHLv0fjdGMEVzBtul6mNfkcrYR2eyYxpWKtPtGzrw3NsSrI+ZYxT74I8S6 e2uB+Evnvl0dauLwhxWrdo4ILW0A9ekKfSrEVkRybBSKp8di2vwCqw== =cgnu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

4 7

Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!
by PhneCards＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Did you know this company is using your email address as part of an unlawful email bomb? I would advise you to write to them at cypherpunks(a)toad.com and owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com and advise them to stop using your email address for this type of activity. It is illegal to use a invalid return email address. If this continues, I will be forced to prosecute the return email address - which they are making to look like you. Below is the letter that I received in my email box ================================================= In a message dated 96-09-25 14:05:23 EDT, you write: >Subj: Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write! >Date: 96-09-25 14:05:23 EDT >From: jimbell(a)pacifier.com (jim bell) >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >To: bdavis(a)thepoint.net (Brian Davis) >CC: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, jf_avon(a)citenet.net > >At 11:50 PM 9/24/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >>On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Rich Burroughs wrote: >> >>> <AP stuff> >>> Anyone who mistakes the lack of "repudiations" for AP on the list for some >>> kind of tacit approval is not getting the whole picture, IMHO. >>> >>> Is this how journalists do their research nowadays -- "give me some info >or >>> I'll write something really bad about you that you'll regret?" Cool. I >>> guess I thought there might still be some kind of pursuit of the truth >>> involved. >>> >>> I personally don't have the time or energy to contribute to the AP >threads. >>> That != approval for the idea. >>> >>> I hope you include your above quote in your piece. >>> >> >>Amen to that. Add that at least one lawyer (and former prosecutor) on >>the list is confident that successful prosecutions will ensue is AP ever >>gets off the ground. > >I don't doubt that there will be harassment. (you can't deny that charges >would be brought even if it is tacitly agreed that no crime has been >committed; "the harassment-value" of such a prosecution would be desired >even if there is ultimately an acquittal.) AP will resemble, more than >anything, gambling. While gambling is illegal in some areas, it is quite >legal in others and there is no reason to believe that locales can't be >found in which an AP system could operate legally. > >Make American laws apply everywhere? That'll be hard to justify, unless you >want to unleash a world where an all people can be subject simultaneously to >the laws of EVERY country, should they choose to enforce them! Would you >like to be arrested in Red China for something you said years earlier in >America about their leadership? > > And are you ignoring the fact that the intentional isolation of one >participant from the knowledge of the actions and even the identity of the >others makes opportunities for prosecution on "conspiracy" charges mighty >slim. And since AP can operate across traditional jurisdictional >boundaries, you're going to have to explain how you can prosecute Person A >in Country B for giving a donation to an organization in Country C, to be >paid to a person D in country E for correctly predicting the death of person >F in country G, particularly when none of the identities of these people or >countries can be easily known given a well-crafted cryptographic and >message-routing system. > > Further, as you probably know as well as any, in order (at least, >supposedly!) to get a conviction you need to prove "mens rea," or "guilty >mind," and I suggest that none of the more passive participants in the AP >system have that. (The ones who DON'T pick up a gun, knife, bomb, poison, >etc.) Sure, they are aware that somewhere, sometime, somebody _may_ commit >a crime in order to collect a lottery, but they don't know who, what, when, >where, or how this will occur, if at all. (either before or after the fact!) > In fact, since it is possible for a target to collect the reward himself >(to be directed toward his designee, obviously) by committing suicide and >"predicting" it, it isn't certain to the other participants that there has >even been any sort of crime committed! > >Based on the mens rea requirement, I propose that there is plenty of room >for most of the participants to reasonably claim that they are guilty of no >crime. They have carefully shielded themselves and others from any guilty >knowledge, and presumably they are entitled to protect themselves in this >way. Morally, you could argue that these people are countenancing something >nasty, in the same sense that somebody could equally well argue that if you >buy a cheap shirt in Walmart you're partly responsible for sweatshop labor >in El Salvador. True, I suppose, but moral guilt does not always translate >into legal guilt. > > >> And yes, I've read Jim Bell's manifesto. The fact >>that no lawyer has dissected it from a legal standpoint has been used by >>Mr. Bell as support for the propostion that it is legal. > >I suggest that there is a greater likelihood that the "powers that be" will >just abandon all pretense of legality, and attempt to strike at the >participants if they can find them without benefit of any sort of trial. >This is a more plausible conclusion, because it cuts through all of the >legal difficulties which would hinder prosecution. In effect, a low-level >undeclared war. > > >Jim Bell >jimbell(a)pacifier.com > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed Sep 25 11:04:24 1996 >Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com >Received: from mailhub.MyMail.Com (mailhub.mymail.com [206.247.118.1]) by >emin14.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id LAA03061 for ><phnecards(a)aol.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 11:04:18 -0400 >Received: from toad.com by mailhub.MyMail.Com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) > id AA26654; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 09:04:05 -0600 >Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id AAA10103 for >cypherpunks-outgoing; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:55:24 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from mail.pacifier.com (root(a)mail.pacifier.com [199.2.117.164]) by >toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id AAA10098 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; >Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:55:16 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from ip20.van1.pacifier.com (ip20.van1.pacifier.com [206.163.4.20]) >by mail.pacifier.com (8.7.6-pac/8.7.3) with SMTP id AAA14065; Wed, 25 Sep >1996 00:55:14 -0700 (PDT) >Message-Id: <199609250755.AAA14065(a)mail.pacifier.com> >X-Sender: jimbell(a)mail.pacifier.com >X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2 >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 00:55:21 -0800 >To: Brian Davis <bdavis(a)thepoint.net> >From: jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> >Subject: Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write! >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com, jf_avon(a)citenet.net >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk

1 0

Re: Lexis and Privacy - Bill approaches.
by PhneCards＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Did you know this company is using your email address as part of an unlawful email bomb? I would advise you to write to them at cypherpunks(a)toad.com and owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com and advise them to stop using your email address for this type of activity. It is illegal to use a invalid return email address. If this continues, I will be forced to prosecute the return email address - which they are making to look like you. Below is the letter that I received in my email box ================================================= In a message dated 96-09-25 15:12:13 EDT, you write: >Subj: Re: Lexis and Privacy - Bill approaches. >Date: 96-09-25 15:12:13 EDT >From: declan(a)eff.org (Declan McCullagh) >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >To: unicorn(a)schloss.li (Black Unicorn) >CC: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > >This would be good if the bills were written well and thoughtfully. >Unfortunately, they explicitly extend executive branch regulatory >jurisdiction to the Net. At least the one I read did; I understand there >are multiple versions. > >-Declan > > >On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Black Unicorn wrote: > >> >> Pressure from the FTC Which fielded hundreds of complaints about Lexis and >> the social security number scrap) has prompted members of the Banking >> Committee to add provisions to the most recent spending bills which >> protect personal information (including social security numbers, phone >> numbers, addresses, and so forth) under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. >> This limits access to this information to credit agencies and otherwise >> authorized entities. (Of which I assume Lexis is not one). >> >> It's not great protection, but it's something. >> >> I urge everyone to take their own measures to protect personal data >> regardless of what some piece of paper on a library shelf says is >> protected. The only real protection is not to allow release of the data >> in the first place. >> >> -- >> I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist >> unicorn(a)schloss.li >> > > >// declan(a)eff.org // I do not represent the EFF // declan(a)well.com // > > > > >----------------------- Headers -------------------------------- >From cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com Wed Sep 25 15:11:39 1996 >Return-Path: cypherpunks-errors(a)toad.com >Received: from mailhub.MyMail.Com (mailhub.mymail.com [206.247.118.1]) by >emin14.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id PAA10310 for ><phnecards(a)aol.com>; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 15:11:34 -0400 >Received: from toad.com by mailhub.MyMail.Com (5.x/SMI-SVR4) > id AA27335; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:11:11 -0600 >Received: (from majordom@localhost) by toad.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA15636 for >cypherpunks-outgoing; Wed, 25 Sep 1996 05:06:43 -0700 (PDT) >Received: from eff.org (declan(a)eff.org [204.253.162.3]) by toad.com >(8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id FAA15631 for <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>; Wed, 25 Sep >1996 05:06:39 -0700 (PDT) >Received: (from declan@localhost) by eff.org (8.7.5/8.6.6) id FAA10228; Wed, >25 Sep 1996 05:06:38 -0700 (PDT) >Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 05:06:38 -0700 (PDT) >From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)eff.org> >To: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> >Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Subject: Re: Lexis and Privacy - Bill approaches. >In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960924190706.9902A-100000@polaris> >Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960925050416.10072A-100000(a)eff.org> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk

3 2

"Confessing to a felony"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:03 AM 9/26/96, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Wed, 25 Sep 1996, Igor Chudov @ home wrote: > >> > >> Soon I am going to be going overseas to Japan, and I want to take >> > >> my notebook with me so I can keep up with everything, however, I have >> > >> encrypted my hard drive and usually encrypt my mail. Is this in >> > >> violation of the ITAR to keep everything the same when I go over? >> >> Gentlemen, us customs does not give shit about what you take out >> on your diskettes. >> >> When I went to Russia recenty, I took PGP for DOS, and no one gave >> me any problem. >> >> IANAL > >Obviously not, you've just confessed to a felony. So? "Confessing to a felony" is meaningless, as I understand things. While BU is a lawyer, and I am not, I maintain "confessing to a felony" is meaningless without several necessary factors: a. interest by law enforcement that a crime has been committed and needs to be prosecuted b. evidence that the "confession" can be backed up by other evidence c. common sense Thus, if even former prosecutor Brian Davis, when he was a prosecutor, were to have "confessed to a felony" (for example, saying a bad word on a forum where minors might be present, under the CDA, and before it was put on semi-hold), his colleagues would just have snickered, thinking him crazy. As to the felony status of taking PGP to Russia, I think it's not a felony. The "personal use" exemption in the ITARs certainly makes taking PGP to _Western_ Europe an OK thing. Whether Russia is still considered to be worthy of an "exemption to the exemption," as it were, is unclear to me. Mostly, I think U.S. Customs doesn't care. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

7 11

Re: Public Schools
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:40 PM 9/25/96, Jay Gairson wrote: >> A minor point: An 800 SAT or Achievement score does _not_ mean "no problems >> missed." There is some threshold for the percentage of right answers, which >> varies from year to year and from test to test, above which the score is >> marked "800." Don't ask me why they do this. (*) > >They did it because, the American students, where scoring worse than the >Japanese students. And the with the 1600 they got a copy of the >questiosn and answers, and the questions they missed, they didn't miss any. >So... Nonsense. Japanese students were not taking the CEEB and SAT tests in the 1950s, when the test methodologies were established. (As a point of fact, the Japanese have their own grueling exams, which bear no resemblance to the CEEB and SAT tests.) Nor were the number of Japanese-American students taking the test sufficiently plentiful in the 1950s and 60s to affect the methodology. So, this is your chance to present your evidence that the scoring methodology was changed in response to Japanese students doing better than American students. >ok >buh bye > >Erp On second thought.... --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: Mitsubishi MISTY LSI
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Nikkei English News, 24 September 1996. > > [Mitsubishi] fabricated the chip as a gate array using a > 0.5 micron CMOS process and its own proprietary > encryption algorithm MISTY. Operating at a maximum > input/output speed of 40 megahertz, the chip can handle > 32 bits per clock cycle. Does anyone have a reason not to consider this algorithm snake oil? e.g.: Was it developed by a well known cryptographer? Has it been vetted by someone/some organization with reputation? I other words, why should we trust it? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | "Cave softly, cave safely, | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | and cave with duct tape." | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | - Marianne Russo | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0