December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: The New GAK-Clipper Thing will Fail
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 AM 10/3/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Comparing the latest GAK/Clipper III (or is it Clipper IV?) thing to the >original Clipper announcement in April 1993, I sense a lot more confusion, >a lot more thorny issues, and a lot more vagueness. They just seem more >disorganized and less committed than the last time around. Each iteration >of Clipper gets less focussed and seems to last a shorter time before the >next version is being talked about. A good thing, of course. Sort of like a "political" version of Zeno's paradox? B^) > >Some random points: >--the large pool of _existing_ crypto products means people will be using >these products for years to come (possibly within GAK wrappers, as just >noted)...unless the New World Order (tm) somehow locates, seizes, or >otherwise makes criminals out of those who use a once-legal product, how >could this be stopped? And I suspect that there will be large numbers of people using non-GAK simply as a protest. Trying to convict even one of them will be difficult; the government has to admit that they're not doing anything illegal, etc. Yet, if the gov't FAILS to prosecute them, that'll destroy an law requiring GAK. [snip] >(On the "costs" issue, running these Key Authorities, staffing them, >complying with subpoenas (and who will _fight_ the subpoenas?), I think it would be appropriate to contact each of the companies which have publicly signed on to this most recent propsal (Clipper 3.XX? Clipper IV?) and point out that (if they still won't revoke their approval) they should publicly and irrevocably commit to challenge each and every key subpoena with a full legal challenge (to the SC if necessary), INCLUDING informing and participation of the key owner/user, with all of his attorney fees paid for by an insurance policy issued specifically for the purpose. This process would probably take at least months, if not years. (This is important, because I believe that wiretaps have set a false precedent: AT+T (before breakup) and local telcos afterwards, being monopolies, had no motivation to challenge wiretap orders, and the practice was to not inform those tapped, perhaps not even after the tap was removed. There is no reason to assume, however, that key-escrow systems should follow that precedent, because the relationship between AT+T and government was not an "arm's length" one. Presumably, key-escrow companies should be entitled, no REQUIRED to verify the legitimacy of any key-release. "It's only fair!" ) The resulting legal atmosphere would become so distasteful to the Dept. of Injustice that it would make key escrow useless as a practical tool, even though it would exist as a technicality. If the DOI objected, companies need merely say the magic words "Richard Jewell" and all ordinary citizens would recognize the problem. The point, of course, is NOT to encourage these companies to support Clipper IV. Rather, goal is to suggest to them a "poison pill" which would make their cooperation meaningless in the end, while at the same time giving them a 2-year free 56-bit export. Think of it as a monkey-wrench they can throw into the works. We can use such a proposal as a sort-of "loyalty to freedom and their fellow citizens oath" because any company which refused such a REASONABLE protection to ordinary citizens would be, in effect, giving their middle finger to the public. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:39 AM 10/3/96 -0400, Mullen Patrick wrote: >This may (will?) limit the products which are produced by large corporations, >as their need for a single, globally distributable product is respected. >However, smaller companies who have neither the desire nor finances to >distribute their product on a global scale will be unaffected. Shareware/ >freeware products will also be unaffected (unless someone from another >country pulls it off a website, or similar means). > >However, all of this is irrelevant, because I must say, Tim May has the >proper idea -- We may have the right to bear crypto, but the government >has the right to limit the types/amounts of crypto we bear. > >** Success in this matter is classifying crypto as speech ** >Patrick While I agree we shouldn't push the crypto/arms connection, on the other hand I think we can push BACK: If the government tries to equate crypto with arms,take the position that while we disagree with this equation, to the extent the government is using it, it must take the good with the bad and accept the "keep and bear arms" interpretation literally. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: [FACTS] Mountain Meadows Massacre
by Deana Holmes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 3 Oct 96 at 8:58, attila wrote: > AFTER THIS POST, ALL RELIGION MUST GO OFF THE LIST! see banner below attila, if you wouldn't post propaganda from the Church, then I *might* agree with you. But you can't do that and expect those of us who know better to keep quiet. <snip Dmitri Vulis nonsense> > Now, concerning the completely ignorant, erroneus, and slanderous > comment of Dimitri, the facts will follow the usual disclaimer: > > *************************************************************** > I am neither an authority of nor a representative of "The Church > of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints" of which our current > living Prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckley, is the sole authority > to this world. Love your CYA statement, dude. It's terribly doubtful that Hinckley knows the details of Mountain Meadows, or that he would want to discuss them, if he did. > I do not speak for the Church, nor am I a recognized > historian and/or spokesman for the Church. Any opinions stated > herein are my viewpoints as discerned from my studies of religion, > in particular the historical aspect of the Church, and I accept all > responsibilty for same. Very good. You know, of course, that if you say the wrong thing in public, that your fate will be that of D. Michael Quinn, the excommunicated Mormon historian, who lost his Church membership because he would not stop telling unpleasant truths about the Church's early history. Just so the other c-punks know that speaking truth has consequences. ******************************************************************* > If some of the list wish to either ask questions RESPONSIBLY or > conduct a shared learning experience of the Mormon religious, > community, and work ethic, please drop me a personal note, and > I will both answer reasonable questions, and serve as moderator > of a list if there is sufficient interest. I think the libertarian faction > in particular might be both surprised and *stunned* by many of > the actual conditions in Utah versus preconceived views. > ******************************************************************* If anyone wants a more jaundiced view of Utah, please drop me a line. I can be a Utah cheerleader if I want (there are many good things about living here) but the fact of the matter is that we live in a Church State. I resent the fact that the dominant religion seems to want to tell *everyone* here how to live their lives. > > now, back to our regularly scheduled programming <g> > > the following is a compilation of information which is as > reasonable a representation of the foul deed as I could assemble. <snip> I would suggest two books, both by historian Juanita Brooks: "The Mountain Meadows Massacre" "John D. Lee" Before the days of Boyd K. Packer, historians weren't excommunicated. Mrs. Brooks' punishment for writing these two books was to be shunned in her southern Utah community. But they remain *the* sources on Mountain Meadows and the general attitude of the people at the time. I notice that attila didn't mention these sources. Deana (who doesn't really approve of the pap that passes for history in orthodox LDS circles) Deana M. Holmes April 1996 poster child for clueless $cientology litigiousness alt.religion.scientology archivist since 2/95 mirele(a)xmission.com

2 1

Re: REM_ail
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:43 PM 10/2/96 GMT, John Young wrote: > 10-8-96. VV: > > "The Remailer Is Dead, Long Live the Remailer. Life After > Penet." By Dave Mandl (Excellent, Dave, yes!) > > By the strict standards of the cypherpunks, a loosely > knit affinity group of the Net's most radical and > technoliterate privacy advocates, Penet's security was > actually on the flimsy side. Its Achilles' heel was the > file -- just begging to be subpoenaed -- that linked > users' real names to their Penet pseudonyms. > Cypherpunk-run remailers, on the other hand, generally > leave no trace of the sender's true identity. In > addition, cypherpunk remailers can be "chained" -- > messages can be routed through several far-flung > remailers before reaching their final destination, making > message tracing all but impossible, even for the remailer > operators. > http://jya.com/remail.txt > ftp://jya.com/pub/incoming/remail.txt REM_ail Now that Helsingius has shut down Penet, what's to stop him from simply LYING about the source of the messages in question, maybe claiming that they came from the output of a cypherpunks remailer and are thus permanently untraceable? (one feature it might have been useful for him to have included in Penet is the ability of the user to re-address a return address, which would presumably erase the original address in the records. Just sending email and some particular password would do it...) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Clipper III on the table
by dustman＠athensnet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ernest Hua <hua(a)chromatic.com> wrote: > I predict, therefore, Netscape and RSA would NOT capitulate to this > latest bitter carrot. Huh? RSA has already gone over to the dark side. According to http://www.rsa.com/PRESSBOX/releases/keyrecov.htm: "The recently announced Key Recovery Alliance, of which RSA is a part, ..."

1 0

Re: Flood Warning
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:47 PM 10/3/96 GMT, John Young wrote: > High-Tech Leaders Join Forces to Enable International > Strong Encryption > > See: http://www.ibm.com/news/alliance2.htm This is apparently no longer valid. Is there a new one? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
by watson＠tds.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Joe Shea, Editor-in-Chief of The American Reporter, said: > Declan, how does your list work? Do you only publish comments that agree with you? I didn't see my first two, and this one only came with your response. Is this your version of freedom of the press, or what? - Maybe Joe would agree to publish everything we send him if we agree to publish everything he sends us. Dave Love to get published

1 0

paging nets
by Jeff Ubois 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Interesting recycled bits from Newsbytes concerning a BBC story drawn from Usenet: BBC Blows Radiopager Security Systems Wide Open LONDON, ENGLAND, 1996 OCT 2 (NB) -- By Steve Gold. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has revealed that radiopaging messages on the UK's paging networks can be read by anyone with a radio scanner and suitable PC software. In addition, the British TV company claims that it is also possible to insert bogus messages onto the paging networks using instructions on the Internet. ... BBC journalists, meanwhile, said that UK radiopaging transmissions were unencrypted and, as such, were insecure when viewed alongside digital cellular phones, where signals are encrypted. ...the BBC claimed it had been shown messages reporting on the activities of Tony Blair, the head of the British Labor Party, along with a message referring to a residence of a member of Royalty. Newsbytes noted that the same system is used in the US.

1 0

Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision
by Remo Pini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Thu Oct 03 08:09:13 1996 - -----Begin Included Message ----- Date: From: To: jimbell(a)pacifier.com Cc: To: jimbell(a)pacifier.com Date: Thu Oct 03 08:08:42 1996 > >* A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching > >* of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this > >* subchapter. > Okay, everybody, call Estes! We've got some crypto to export...er...laun > ch! If I get the above wording correctly (unicorn, help me!), it is sufficient to put the cryptostuff on a disc in a LAUNCHABLE device, it never says that the payload has to be delivered by air. So, just put that thing in a bag and get it through customs... (or does "by reason of ..." mean that the exclusive means of export allowed is launching ?) remo pini - ------< fate favors the prepared mind >------ Remo Pini rp(a)rpini.com PGP: http://www.rpini.com/crypto/crypto.html - ----< words are what reality is made of >---- - ---- End of forwarded message ---- - ------< fate favors the prepared mind >------ Remo Pini rp(a)rpini.com PGP: http://www.rpini.com/crypto/crypto.html - ----< words are what reality is made of >---- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv Comment: http://www.rpini.com/crypto/crypto.html iQEVAwUBMlNYihFhy5sz+bTpAQFnxwf/dvzBi/4wSb2IRUJfrpWGtIiHeq+BODKO p+4P1Lqqh5aPPyjI38I8M0d7/KBrpIHAveQ7UNo2W42WrDHgieFJV55c0H8Envj/ +FOJu9KLR9Z6bQ327jYjmKCTbfdveRiZQX++/4eSud+LMtkByCzLv8IsGPjvKeTw 6fBxH1Zq0EUJuOGNFUx8hCqe6IssYyrr99DLFisfxdAFBdo5lP0ujNzQ/ov4iqki qnFBugIViHikldzbq9e7KnASKP4RhkwAYpnJ85dlHCv8yJF3yjgItf6jSPG48/Xp PkNa4bfp3LhpCRD8AEus/RNxpds28mUIktDluWgHuqP9Gy0ZI9xmpw== =JOUm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

5 4

Re: Clipper spin [was Re:Flood Warning]
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:00 PM 10/3/96 -0800, Jim McCoy wrote: >[...] >> >> High-Tech Leaders Join Forces to Enable International >> Strong Encryption >> >> See: http://www.ibm.com/news/alliance2.htm > >The "International Strong Encryption" phrase is something that we >need to become active in stopping. Anything which responds to such >announcements should put a different spin on this phrase. If the >Clipper farce is accepted as "strong" encryption then the battle is >lost; maybe something like "it is _international_ strong encryption >because it is the strongest encryption people like Saddam Hussein [insert >bogeyman du jour] want Americans to have access to" Idea 1: It should be called "International Weakened Encryption." Idea 2: The "alliance" term above in the URL should be replaced with "Axis." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0