December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: legality of wiretapping: a "key" distinction
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:22 PM 10/7/96 -0700, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: >>and an argument about the constitution: >> >>"The constitution says I must be given a choice between disclosing and >>contempt." >> >>I don't remember seeing any examples of the latter come across the list. As >>I remember things, the context of my statement above was a discussion of >>why third-party key escrow is not the same as self-escrow. > >the point is that many cpunks feel that warrants and wiretaps and >subpoenas are things to defy. it's a hypocritical double standard >in which they cloth themselves in the wrapping of the constitution >or law whenever it is useful to their arguments, and then advocate criminality, >such as via defying legal warrants etc, whenever the case suits them. Grandly ignoring the 5th amendment, I see?!? I don't see any contradiction: We can look to the Constitution, simultaneously, for rights for ourselves AND for restrictions on government. > >[wiretaps] > >>It's rarely quoted here because it is unremarkable; just as the list is not >>a place for basic crypto education, it is not a place for basic legal >>education. > >ooops, you fell for Unicorn's muddying misstatement of my question. OBVIOUSLY >there is lots of case law on wiretaps. what I was trying to point out >was that I find little discussion of cases here trying to discredit >wiretap law for various reasons, such as that the wiretapped >person is not informed. the distinction of the person *not*being*informed* >of the wiretap is very important as otehrs here agree, and I would >expect everyone would be familiar with a simple case that gives a >decision on it (in much the way many constitutional cases are >regularly quoted) or that people would advocate wiretap law would >be challenged on the basis of the lack of such a precedent case. Now _THAT'S_ a very valid point. Unicorn totally ignored that issue. I pointed out my expectation that the only reason wiretaps are secret is their technical ability to do them while staying secret. I've occasionally pointed out that if tomorrow, scientists discover some sort of teleport system that allows cops to sneak through walls, at the same time being invisible, cops and judges will suddenly announce that the requirement that people searched need to be informed of that search is, uh, no longer applicable. This is a problem. No, not the precise hypothetical I imagined above; I don't think it's going to be possible as stated for a long time and probably never. The problem, however, is that "the authorities" have respect for the rights of the citizens more in the breach than in the observance, and if they find what they consider to be a good reason to ignore them, they will with little hesitation. >>(The answer to most of the "how do I find out about 'X'?" questions > >you have a lot of good advice, but I ask none of the things you are >attributing to me. I simply would like to carry on a discussion with >a civilized lawyer who specializes in the subject, rather than have >a people tell me why I cannot even do this, and must become a law >specialized before I can even use the word "wiretap" with any >meaningfulness. It's particularly pointless that some of these lawyers keep saying things like, "You don't understand how the law works!" when it is quite obvious that in most cases, the people who are complaining DO know enough about how the law works to identify when it is being abused. This is not surprising: For example, I can't ice-skate worth beans, but I easily tell the difference between a bad and a good ice-skater. I can't make music, but I can tell the difference between bad and good music. I don't know much about architecture, but if I see a building collapse I can see that somebody made a mistake. I don't act, but I can tell the different between a good and bad actor. It is a frequent conceit among "experts" that the only people who should be able to criticize them are people who know as much as they do on a particular subject. Black Unicorn is particularly bad in this regard. >the chief point of my post was to question why the EFF etc. are not >at all interested in challenging the wiretap "status quo" in spite >of what many people here believe/advocate-- that wiretapping was >never legitimate in the first place. this is curious because EFF >etc. *are* willing to back up the cryptography cases out there, >ala Bernstein etc. Probably mostly because they expect that the government is going to be completely unwilling to admit that it's wrong. In fact, of course, that's exactly why the government is very much afraid of the advent of good encryption: Ubiquitous crypto telephones make the government's use of wiretapping irrelevant, totally without regard to what any cop or judge or prosecutor says. Fundamentally, it's a technical fix to a legal mistake. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

RE: WINDOWS NT ????
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sun, 6 Oct 1996 11:39:53 +0100, Matthew Richardson wrote: >> Okay, correct me if I'm wrong on this (as if you wouldn't...): >> 1. Microsoft markets NT with C2 security >> 2. Numerous industry magazines report that you can bypass NTFS file >> security by booting off of a diskette and using NTFSDOS. >> 3. Numerous industry magazines (and I believe MS finally mentioned it >> in some routine status update) all say that NT should now be considered >> C2 *ONLY* on machines w/o floppy drives. > >Microsoft only claim C2 security when the machine is physically secured >and not attached to any network. Specifically NTFS makes no claim of any >encryption and can thus be read by non-NT software. Now. They used to claim C2 for a machine w/floppies. Now they don't. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

1 0

Best-of-Crypto (was:this list is a joke)
by I~nigo Gonzalez 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: > > "I~nigo Gonzalez" <nexus(a)adv.es> writes: > >> Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM wrote: >>> When I joined this mailing list, it had plenty of technical discussions >>> posted by people knowledgeable in cryptography. They have all since left. >> >> Where did they go?????? I want to read something _good_ not spam. >> What about coderpunks ???? > > There's some interesting discussion on coderpunks, but it's pretty > low-volume. There used to be interesting threads on cypherpunks - > I'm not awarae of any place where they continue. > Maybe we can build here (at adv.es) a Best-Of-Crypto mailing list... with the _same_ spirit we have now Best-Of-Security... I mean technical, relevant postings... Any comments ??? -- Iñigo González - ADV Internet Technical Advisor <nexus(a)adv.es> "Never say anything online that you wouldn't want to see on the front page of The New York Times." - alt.2600.moderated Posting

2 1

BEL_cor
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We've grabbed the Bellcore reports on EZ-tamper smart card crypto for those who want to try it: http://jya.com/belcor.txt (17 kb for 3) ftp://jya.com/pub/incoming/belcor.txt BEL_cor Bellcore's Ken Branson says that the researchers are due to publish the work in more detail in a distinguished journal -- for mucho Erdos numeros and The Wild Bunch infosec cultists. Why, Ken prys and spies, are los architectoes del jya.commie, curious about such esoterica topicana? It's obvious, jyawns, guzzling tequila sombreroly, the sweaty-palm topic's matt-blazing hot, like the Bellcore rocket miraging del web page. RH, eatcher heart out. TM, oh my, herding cats.

1 0

Re: unsubsribe
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:04 AM 10/2/96 GMT, GOULDING CP wrote: >unsubsribe How to unsubsribe is a closely guarded cypherpunk secret. I will send you unsubsription information if you prove you are a genuine cypherpunk by sending me the secret code word in a PGP encrypted message. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: "Drift net fishing," GAK, FBI, and NSA
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>A note on _contact analysis_. One thing the FBI probably wants badly are >databases of who has travelled where, and when, for correlation analysis. >Note that the crackdown on "valid IDs" for travel, for airlines, helps in >this regard. I would not be surprised to learn that the airline databases >are routinely fed to the Feds, so to speak. (Possibly via the FAA, acting >as a kind of cutout.) Were I the head of the FBI, this is what I would >want. The airlines don't yet carefully check IDs (no SSN or DL # retained). They merely check that the name on your ID matches the reservation. > >The next step will be collecting hotel reservation databases. (Unlike the >case with the FAA and the airlines, I don't know what kind of authority >would grant them access to private hotel databases, but I expect they are >working to find such authority somewhere. Maybe the infinitely malleable >"regulation of commerce" clause, even if hotel stays are canonically _not_ >interstate trade!) > >(They already got access to the credit card databases, decades ago, of course.) > Are SSN and other ID required when opening a 'pre-paid' credit card account? That is, the ones for persons with poor credit who are required to maintain a balance sufficient to pay off the charges? Perhaps we could put our heads together and determine a way to become franchised by MC/VISA and offer 'affinity' type accounts with no address requirements (all statments are sent via remailer/nym email). -- Steve

10 13

EUB_low
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

10-7-96. WaPo: "Russian Crime Finds Havens In Caribbean" Russian organized crime groups are using unregulated and secretive Caribbean banks to launder their illicit gains, according to U.S. and Caribbean law enforcement officials. One bank that has drawn the scrutiny of U.S. authorities is European Union Bank in Antigua. EUB describes itself as the first bank on the Internet, offering the chance to open accounts, wire money, order credit cards or write checks by computer from anywhere in the world, 24 hours a day. A U.S. official said, "The bank is being investigated for violating U.S. laws with open solicitations on the Net, which is at best for tax evasion and at worst for money laundering." ----- http://jya.com/eublow.txt (10 kb) ftp://jya.com/pub/incoming/eublow.txt EUB_low

2 1

Re: EUB - Pay attention next time guys.
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:09 PM 10/7/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: > EUB is probably in more trouble than they realize because they chose an > interesting solution to their bandwidth problem. > > [...] > > Prediction: EUB will change its structure dramatically in the next 6 > months if it still exists at all in that time. Prediction: Nothing much will happen to European Union bank. Possibily their US web site will be closed down, in which case twenty guys will echo it, and they will have to pay more for bandwidth. > Lesson learned: Never > involve the United States directly. Lesson learned. The United States is just a speed bump on the information highway. The critical error is not involving the United States directly, the critical error is leaving assets or information in a place and form where US thugs with guns can get at it. I see no reason to believe the EUB has made this error. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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: Put up or shut up!
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:22 PM 10/6/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > It turns out that I would save nothing in taxes by moving some of my liquid > assets to some particular coral atoll. (Unless I lie on my 1040, which is > always an option.) Hmmmm.... --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

1 0

Re: Put up or shut up!
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:18 AM 10/7/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: > There is no > one good solution, and anyone who sells you a universal package is selling > you a bill of goods. Surely there is at least one good solution to an exceedingly common problem -- large assets in the US that are known to the authorities. > Careful, professional, and highest quality service is required to properly > design any investment design. Again, you get what you pay for. Smoke. The reason that no one publishes "How to" step by step instructions for discretely expatriating your money is exactly the same reason as the reason that nobody publishes "How to" step by step instructions for buying dope. For example one ever popular method of expatriating money, (or repatriating it to preferred politicians), is by means of a friendly cattle futures broker. First find your friendly cattle futures broker. Despite this, many people manage to buy dope and many people manage to discretely expatriate their money. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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