December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Anonymous Mail at US Post
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:45 AM 9/25/96, Greg Kucharo wrote: >I don't know if anyone else has seen this, but I was mailing letters >in the "out front" boxes the other day when I noticed a sign. The sign >said that all packages 16 ounces or over had to be taken inside for >disposal into the mail slot. The obvious explanation being that even >though you can abstain from marking a return address, the postal >inspectors would like a nice photo of you with your mail. Yes, this was the chief topic of discussion here a few weeks ago. :-} One of the serious downsides of someone filtering out messages is that all 1400 of us then see the same topics presented again. (This is more serious when people are forwarding long articles or press releases, with sometimes half a dozen copies being received on the list.) --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: Rutgers DIMACS Dist. Trust Workshop
by Mike McNally 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Has anyone who's registered for next week's conference at Rutgers gotten any sort of confirmation? I've been trying for days to do so, and though I've sent mail and called I haven't managed to get hold of anyone who can tell me anything. (And now they seem to not answer the phone at all; I think they got a bigger response than they expected.) -- ______c_________________________________________________________________ Mike M Nally * IBM % Tivoli * Austin TX * How quickly we forget that mailto:m5@tivoli.com mailto:m101@io.com * "deer processing" and "data http://www.io.com/~m101/ * processing" are different!

1 0

Euro-Commission to tackle porn on Internet
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** Euro-Commission to tackle porn on Internet The European Commission, faced with calls to clamp down on Internet pornography following a Belgian pedophilia scandal, will take a first step in October toward seeing how it can be done. On Oct. 9, Culture Commissioner Marcelino Oreja plans to unveil a paper outlining how to identify authors of Internet pornography and how to interrupt that pornography. Oreja said options raised in the paper include encrypting access so that only those who pay could see the material or including a V-chip to screen against pornographic content. For the full text story, see http://www.merc.com/stories/cgi/story.cgi?id=178562-80c - Vipul -- Vipul Ved Prakash | - Electronic Security & Crypto vipul(a)pobox.com | - Internet & Intranets 91 11 2247802 | - Web Development & PERL 198 Madhuban IP Extension | - Linux & Open Systems Delhi, INDIA 110 092 | - (Networked) Multimedia

1 0

Re: Bernstein hearing: The Press Release
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>And the ITARs are only executive orders, no? Not laws, right? I'm curious >as to why they're considered valid. Anyone know? They're administrative regulations. Legislative bodies (like Congress and state legislatures) can delegate some of their legislative authority to executive agencies (like the Forest Service or the State Dept) to make rules which have the force of law. This is done because legislatures don't have time to write all of the laws that bureaucrats think ought to be written - so the legislature says "Fine, write your own damn laws." Legislatures don't want to bother with deciding where you can build a fire on federal lands or exactly how close you can fly to an airport if you're not taking off or landing or what happens to undeliverable mail at the Post Office. So legislatures give some of their lawmaking power to the agencies that are in a position to see what needs to be regulated. The delegation of power is limited by superior law (e.g., statutes written by the legislature) and the regulatory duties of the agency (such that the Forest Service can't write regs for the FAA, etc.) and by the grant of power itself. This sounds like cops making up their own laws - and it is, but they have to act like legislatures when they do it. This means that they must (generally) publish proposed regs, accept comments, ignore them, and then publish final regulations. Agencies can't change the regs on a daily or a case-by-case basis, or change them without making the changes public. (But "public" means "buried somewhere in the Federal Register".) And that's what the ITAR is - a body of administrative law developed by the executive branch pursuant to a grant of power from Congress. (e.g., 22 USC 2778(a)(1), ". . . The President is authorized to designate those items which shall be considered as defense articles and defense services for the purposes of this section and to promulgate regulations for the import and export of such articles and services. The items so designated shall constitute the United States Munitions List.") It is subject to review by the courts just like the product of Congress itself; and an agency can't do something Congress can't do, like write an unconstitutional law. (Which is not to say that I agree with the inclusion of crypto on the list, or even the idea of "export controls", but I've seen the argument that "ITAR is not a real law so none of this matters" float across the list a few times and it's not realistic. Whether or not a given individual likes the idea of administrative rulemaking, it's clear that the courts and the government think that it's real, and will put people in jail for violating administrative regs.) -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

5 4

Medical Data
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In the public discussions about "medical data bases" and "medical account numbers," the key issue is being missed. Namely, Why can't patients carry their _own_ medical records, and disclose what they wish to disclose to doctors and hospitals, as they see fit? Whether implemented in a high-tech version, as a "smart card," or a low-tech version, as a "dossier" (a file folder), the principle's the same. (I'll get to insurance companies in a moment.) There is little incentive (*) that I can imagine for any patient to deliberately lie on his records, as such lying usually harms himself by providing misleading information to someone who is trying to help him--I mention this because presumably one of the reasons hospitals and whatnot keep the records is fear that the records will be altered or not fully reported. Medical records appear to be a perfect example of Chaum's "selective disclosure of credentials," or even "credentials without identity." (* There is of course some incentive to lie or withold medical information if the patient deems it invasive of his privacy, or something that he does not want on records accessible to others. But in a _specific medical treatment_, for example, he gains little by denying that he had measles as a child, or that he has used IV drugs. Provided he can disclose this information without being added to a data base--e.g., by using selective disclosure of information (and not his name)--the incentives for lying are small, possibly negative.) Insurers would of course be worried about falsification of records. This can be handled in several ways. Digitally-signed statements from hospitals or test services could be required, depending on the policies of the insurers--the holder of the files, such as the patient, would be unable to fake or alter such records. Still, when one asks another party to make a "bet" about one's health, which is what insurance of course is, it's not surprising that they would want to see to independent verification of one's assertions. This is largely separable from the issue of disclosing to doctors and hospitals medical information. The comparison that is often made between credit records and medical records is flawed. Credit records are the items of data _from other people_, e.g., the persons one has borrowed from, the landlords one has rented from, etc. And with credit records, a person is often inclined to falsify or withold items (though this is also solved partly with digital signatures, though not perfectly). (There are some interesting links with object-oriented programming, with patient-objects able to maintain their own state. Not true of creditee-objects, who are not the owners of the credit worthiness judgments of others.) This could be an area where actual progress can be made. While many people, and regulators, have concerns about untraceable digital cash, it is likely that the _public_ would find it hard to buy the argument that patients being responsible for their own medical records would be a dire threat to the Republic! Thus, while carrying one's own credit record is mostly unworkable, carrying one's own medical records is completely feasible, and solves many privacy problems. --Tim May (I hope I fixed any scrambled paragraphs...my Mac crashed again (it's been crashing several times a day, what with all the various semi-incompatible versions of the Mac OS, extensions, new programs, etc., I have) and I had to recover the text of what I'd been typing from one of those dreaded--but very useful--"keystroke capture" programs.) 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."

4 3

Re: Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!
by Rich Burroughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:33 PM 9/23/96 -0700, tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >At 2:10 AM 9/24/96, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: > >>like Markof are somewhat more responsible. This is not going to stop me >>from producing an op-ed piece linkiing the net libertarians to assasination >>politics unless I hear a few more repudiations of Bell's ideas. If you >>don't very clearly reject his murderous ideas you are going to regret it >>just as the left regreted having the USSR or the RAF associated with them. > >I for one don't respond well to extortion threats, so write your damned article. 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. Rich ______________________________________________________________________ Rich Burroughs richieb(a)teleport.com http://www.teleport.com/~richieb See my Blue Ribbon Page at http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/blueribbon U.S. State Censorship Page at - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/state New EF zine "cause for alarm" - http://www.teleport.com/~richieb/cause

7 7

Re: We removed radikal 154 from xs4all :(
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:28 AM 9/24/96 -0400, pjb(a)ny.ubs.com wrote: > i was under the impression that germany's goal was to stop the distribution > of radikal 154 by xs4all, not by 50 mirror sites. they seem to have > accomplished their goal. do you really think that they will let a little > thing like reason stand in their way when claiming victory? Your impression was wrong. Let us just run through the sequence of events. A bunch of leftover commies publish some boring commie crap in Germany, which probably most people would have ignored. Thugs with truncheons shut them up, making large numbers of "preventative" arrests. (A "preventative" arrest is when you have done nothing illegal, let alone wrong, but they arrest you anyway.) Result: big publicity on the internet, dead silence in the "free" german press. Germany tries to shut up the internet. Result: Even bigger publicity. Sounds like a defeat for Germany to me. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

3 2

Re: ISPs' information on users
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:18 PM 9/24/96, Robert Hettinga wrote: >--- begin forwarded text >> ------------------------------ >> Brave Old World: >> Reflections on Europe in the Digital Age >> by Steven Carlson; 20 Sep 1996 >> ------------------------------ >> >> ** So Much Fuss About A Bottle Of Ketchup >> >> Hungarian police recently sent a fax around to the local Internet >> service providers (ISPs) asking them to provide lists of their users >> in Esztergom, a small town outside of Budapest. It seems somebody >> had planted a bomb in a bottle of ketchup. Since everyone knows you >> can download bomb-making instructions from the Internet, the police >> figured they should investigate the local users. No, I'm not making >> this up. So, Hungary has GAK -- Government Access to Ketchup. Good to know the 57 Varieties are now considered munitions. On a more serious note, perhaps legal experts here could comment on something I've been wondering about. Could ISPs in the UlS. be compelled to report on the browsing and net surfing habits of their customer base? To make this clear, I don't mean in a specific criminal case, where the records are searchable under a warrant. I mean a blanket order that all ISPs compile and forward records. Were I an ISP, I would probably say, "Hell no! They're my records and the Fourth Amendment says my records are to be secure unless a proper court order is issued. Besides, my fee for generating each kilobyte of records is $100,000, nonnegotiable." (I think I've answered my own question, namely, ISPs would be under no obligation to report on customer activities, absent a proper warrant, and consistent with the ECPA.) However, ISPs are _not_ accorded the same status as priests, lawyers, and others with such privacy privileges (and obligations). Would it be legal for an ISP to offer for sale such records? Or to voluntarily go to the cops? (There's a certain new ISP with tight links to a quasi-religious group much in the news lately, and some have speculated that this ISP may be monitoring certain users....) --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."

5 4

Hallam-Baker demands more repudiations or he'll write!
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:10 AM 9/24/96, hallam(a)vesuvius.ai.mit.edu wrote: >like Markof are somewhat more responsible. This is not going to stop me >from producing an op-ed piece linkiing the net libertarians to assasination >politics unless I hear a few more repudiations of Bell's ideas. If you >don't very clearly reject his murderous ideas you are going to regret it >just as the left regreted having the USSR or the RAF associated with them. I for one don't respond well to extortion threats, so write your damned article. --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."

6 5

Re: We removed radikal 154 from xs4all :(
by pjb＠ny.ubs.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Adam, you know the german government did not win this one, and i know that they did not win, my point was, will they, and other governments take this as a win and be encourgaged to press their luck with someone else. -paul > From aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk Wed Sep 25 02:45:54 1996 > Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 17:21:16 +0100 > From: Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> > To: pjb(a)ny.ubs.com > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: We removed radikal 154 from xs4all :( > Content-Length: 989 > > > Paul <pjb(a)ny.ubs.com> writes: > > i was under the impression that germany's goal was to stop the distribution > > of radikal 154 by xs4all, not by 50 mirror sites. they seem to have > > accomplished their goal. do you really think that they will let a little > > thing like reason stand in their way when claiming victory? > > They lost: it is still available. If they went after another mirror > the number of mirrors would double :-) > > Someone in the German press needs to rub their noses in the fact that > they lost, say by printing a list of URLS, or just mentioning the > number of mirrors, and the different countries they are located in. > > The need to translate the quote: > > `The internet sees censorship as damage, and routes around it' > > and put that in big letters. > > Any German net freelance journalists reading? > > Adam > -- > #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj > $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 > lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/) >

3 2