December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Creative Wiretap Arguments [Was :Re: Put up or shut up]
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:37 AM 10/9/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote: >> Maybe you're missing the point? Even if you accept the idea of wiretapping >> telephone lines, one of the things that _isn't_ settled is how law is going >> to start treating ISP's. That, let me point out, IS NOT settled law, and in >> fact it hasn't really even started, so those lawyers who have a knee-jerk >> tendency to accept precedent don't have any precedent to accept! (unless, >> of course, they "pre-accept" the assumption that what the government can do >> WRT ISP's is somehow identical to what they do with telephones.) > >I disagree. There is lots of potential precident. The entire concept >that data voluntarily turned over to a 3rd party is not entitled to 4th >amendment protection (i.e., pen registers) is just the one that happens to >jump to mind. Given that the "constitutionality" of pen registers is pretty intimately tied up with the ADMITTEDLY illegal usage of wiretaps before 1968, that hardly qualifies as a settled issue. (I say this from the standpoint of "what really oughtta be" rather than "what those nine morons will accept.") BTW, it is unclear why this argument ("data voluntarily turned over to a 3rd party") couldn't "automatically" be applied to telephone audio itself. After all, in order to get the audio to the other end, you have to convert it into varying electical signals, which are "turned over to a 3rd party", the telephone company. The distinction between these two forms of information is pretty flimsy. (Chances are excellent that the only reason for any distinction between them at all originated back before 1968, when wiretaps themselves were considered illegal, and the cops wanted to be able to justify what they probably called a "minimal" violation of privacy short of being able to hear the audio itself. Now that the wiretaps themselves are called "legal" I suspect that the cops will have reverted to the assertion that this information is essentially identical from a warrant standpoint.) Another possibility is that this is simply a holdover from the time when automated switching of telephone lines was essentially unknown: To make a telephone call, you "had to" tell the operator the number you were calling, and thus presumably you'd "voluntarily" turned it over. However, that presumption evaporated once automated switching took over, and there's no requirement that the telephone switch makes a permanent record of any given phone call. "Naturally," the cops would have argued that the advance of technology (automatic switching) would "make futile law-enforcement access" (much as they are now claiming the advance of encryption will do) and would have argued that the new technology shouldn't prevent them from knowing who is making phone calls to whom. Isn't it interesting that when an advance in technology allows the cops to do something they hadn't been able to do before, they accept it as if it's a done deal, whereas when technology starts taking away an ability they howl "like a stuck pig." Sounds pretty selfish to me. > The fact that the government has had to deal with >the breakup of ma bell and cooperate with several different phone >companies now suggests to me that not much of a leap is required to >include ISPs. Constitutional arguments that ISPs are somehow different >from phone companies and therefore not required to comply with wiretap >orders? Good luck. All of which are still monopolies, at least in their defined areas of business. And customers have no choice of who to deal with, as a result. Thus, phone companies never had any motivation to satisfy their customers by fighting wiretap warrants in court. Etc. ISP's are not monopolies, they are not common carriers, etc. ISP's, quite simply, are entitled to write their OWN rules about how they deal with customers. One the whole, I'd say there are plenty of differences between a plain-vanilla telephone company and an ISP. >I know its fun to make the argument that ISPs and E-mail and NetPhone are >all new technologies and so it must be unconstitutional to regulate them >but the amusement in these cases stems from a wish that it was so, not >fact or reason. I didn't mention, "unconstitutional"; it's possible that it's simply "illegal", as in, "there's no law yet which allows "ISP-tapping." In the same sense as wiretapping was illegal before 1968. BTW, I'm not saying that "normal" wiretapping can't be done on an ISP. In other words, arguendo the cops would only be entitled to connect to the phone line(s), as in an ordinary wiretap. But that might be pretty damn ineffective, given that even a typical small ISP probably has a hundred or more phone lines to monitor. In other words, there's no single point where the cops can clip on the clip leads and get the data they want. Which raises the issue, "Is the ISP required to install 'wiretap-friendly' capability?" Apparently not, if the cellular phone industry is any precedent: For awhile, cops couldn't easily tap cell phones because no such capability had been designed into the cell-site software. Such an omission was not considered a violation of law. >> I contend that an ISP should be entitled to enter into a contract with his >> customers in a way which obligates him to structure his business to minimize >> his ability to cooperate with police when given a search warrant. > >"I content that a phone company should be entitled to enter into a >contract with his customers in a way which obligates him to structure his >business to minimize his ability to cooperate with police when given a >search warrant." Yeah. Good luck. It looks like you're not very perceptive. Notice I said "minimize his ability to cooperate." As far as I'm aware, telephone companies are not required to keep many of the records they currently keep. If they contract with a customer to not keep those records, the inability of the cops to get those records is not any sort of violation of law. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Tim May is a fine person.
by anonymous＠miron.vip.best.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May is a fine person. You people should not be sending out some many negative vibes. We all owe Tim a gread debt for his help an advancing cryptography.

4 3

Not content with the CDA, Sen. Exon derails Pro-CODE
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

********* Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 17:54:52 -0500 To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu From: declan(a)well.com (Declan McCullagh) Subject: Not content with the CDA, Sen. Exon derails Pro-CODE When the White House wanted to derail pro-encryption legislation, they knew where to turn: to the infamous author of the even more infamous Communications Decency Act. Last month Sen. Jim Exon (D-Nebraska) wrote the attached letter to Sen. Pressler, chair of the commerce committee, days before the ProCODE pro-crypto bill would have cleared its last hurdle in committee then moved to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Because of Exon's threatened "several amendments" that would defang the bill, the markup never happened. Thanks to Exon, it didn't have a chance. But don't blame the retiring senator from Nebraska. Not only are your electrons wasted, he's not the true culprit. It was the White House, in thrall to the Justice Department: Gore advisor Greg Simon made the calls to Exon's office that prompted this letter to Pressler. -Declan http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/ Background: http://www.hotwired.com/muckraker/96/36/index4a.html ****** September 9, 1996 The Honorable Larry Pressler Chairman Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee 243 Russell Senate Office Building United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senator Pressler: I understand that the Senate Commerce Committee may have a markup this week to consider the so-called Pro-CODE computer encryption bill. As you know, the computer industry has had a series of high-level discussions with the President, Vice President, and the government's national security experts. I am hopeful that these discussions will produce substantial and meaningful reform in the current export regime for encryption software. Given the national security and law enforcement implications of the proposed legislation, to rush into a mark-up before these concerns are resolved would be a mistake. If the measure is taken up on Thursday, I would expect that there would be several amendments. With best wishes, Sincerely, Jim Exon United States Senator cc The Honorable Fritz Hollings ###

1 0

Re: Missionaries (was: "Mormon Asshole?" re: GAK)
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Sat, 5 Oct 1996 15:55:42 -0700 (PDT), John C. Randolph wrote: >What's really sad is the way that every cult member tries to convince >himself that *his* franchise has more to offer than Lifespring, Food for thought: suppose he didn't - why would any rational individual follow a religion he thought was wrong? # 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)

10 10

Re: 2Re: Best-of-Crypto
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: > I read the full list, so I don't keep these URLs bookmarked or handy. > Arachelian posts to Cypherpunks regularly, so contact him from those > messages. Blossom is involved with his company, "Infosec," so some > combination of these words in a search engine should turn up something. Eric Blossom is eb(a)comsec.com. His URL is http://www.comsec.com/ check out his nifty bump-in-the-cord 3DES phone encryption device. --Lucky

1 0

Stanford patents
by rschlafly＠attmail.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Declan McCullagh <declan(a)eff.org> writes: > >You'll have trouble doing a successful boycott of RSA. What, you won't > >use Netscape Navigator or PGP? > > Actually RSA is not a hard target for people like us to threaten. The > Diffie-Hellman patent expires in 210 days. Cylink is prevented from taking > legal action against anyone for violating this patent while the current > lawsuit is being decided. When Diffie-Hellman expires ElGamal is available > for use for free. So the best threat one can make against RSA is to directly > challenge their revenue stream: start working on making ElGamal an available > option in all systems which use RSA. A couple of minor corrections. Diffie-Hellman doesn't expire until Sept. 6, 1997. Cylink can sue anyone at any time, for infringement up to 6 years in the past. It is not likely to do so while its case against RSADSI is pending, because most of the infringers are RSADSI customers who have been indemnified by RSADSI. ElGamal won't be free of patent claims until Hellman-Merkle expires, a month after Diffie- Hellman. ElGamal/DSA is an attractive alternative to RSA, and ought to be more widely used. More information about the patent lawsuit can be found at: http://bbs.cruzio.com/~schlafly#pkpsuit There are some hearings scheduled, but nothing of great significance has been decided so far. Roger

1 0

Will Rodger of Inter@ctive Week on ISP-TV Monday Night
by ISP-TV Main Contact 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

*** ISP-TV Program Announcement: Will Rodger Interview *** *** Monday, Oct. 14 *** *** 9:00 PM ET *** Will Rodger, Washington Bureau Chief of Inter@ctive Week, will be the guest on this week's "Real Time" interview series. Rodger has written many articles on Telecom policy, as well as exclusive stories on Clipper III and the appeal of the CDA to the Supreme Court. This video interview can be viewed on the ISP-TV main CU-SeeMe reflector at IP 205.197.247.33, or other ISP-TV affiliate reflectors listed at http://www.digex.net/isptv/members.html See URL http://www.digex.net/isptv for more information about the ISP-TV Network To obtain Enhanced CU-SeeMe software, go to: http://goliath.wpine.com/cudownload.htm

1 0

[Noise] Re: Missionaries (was: "Mormon Asshole?" re: GAK)
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:08 PM 10/8/96 -0700, Paul S. Penrod wrote: >On Tue, 8 Oct 1996, Stephen Humble wrote: >> Biblical creationism is "wrong": there's ample evidence that the Earth >> is *much* more than 6000 years old. Yet lots of seemingly rational >> people believe biblical creationism. >> > >The "evidence" is based upon the belief that such techniques as carbon >dating and statistical radio active half life bearing rocks give an >accurate measurement of time as we know it. Geologically speaking, we are >just pissing in the fan to see which way it blows and calling it good. >And, considering the number of text books and egos to be restrung if it >was ever conclusively proven wrong would be devastating to say the least to >the current crop of scientists. I suggest you take your beliefs to talk.origins. I am sure that there are a great number of people who will be willing to explain just *WHY* creationism is no longer accepted as a rational belief. The current line of thought in evolutionary science is not just a whim or "pissing in the wind", it is based on WHAT WORKS. Creationists have spent alot of time making claims as to why the earth was created by God, but none of them has come up with the slightest shread of EVIDENCE as to it actually being done that way. What passes for "Creation Science" is alot of nitpicking about evolutionary theory. (As if somehow "disproving" evolution will somehow "prove" creationism.) Most of the so-called "proofs" for Creationism are based on ignorance of what evolutionary theory actually consists of. I suggest that you actually read the talk.origins FAQs. They might teach you something about real science instead of that pretend science you have been getting at church. As for what this whole thread has to do with crypto, i have no idea... --- | "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 |

2 1

another MMF?
by Matthew Sheppard 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A friend of mine got this in the mail, pretty sure the from addr is broken. The Audio Tape will be a must for cpunk parties. ------- Start of forwarded message ------- From: Lsat(a)Lsat.com Date: Tue, 08 Oct 1996 03:04:16 PDT Subject: Your ACCOUNT... ARE YOU NUTS?????? Your provider for Internet Services is ripping you OFF! The Internet was designed to be FREE!! PLEASE PLEASE let us show you where/how you can get it free! Please Read Below. JUST FOR READING THIS YOU WILL GET A FREE EMAIL ACCOUNT!!!!!! - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEVER EVER pay for Internet Access AGAIN!!! E-V-E-R! This Amazing Course on Audio Tape teaches you STEP by STEP your Internet Service Provider 1doesn't want you to know! * How to get FREE DIAL-UP PPP Internet Access! * How to Surf the Web,Newsgroups,and EMAIL Anonymously/Untraceable! * Where you can get FREE Email Remailing! * Where you can get FREE Email Addresses! * Where you can get FREE Access to SMTP (Outgoing email)! * Where you can get FREE Access to News Servers! * Where you can get FREE Web Pages! * How to get FREE Internet Tools for Email, News, WWW, Etc.! * How to get free accounts on BBS's! * How to Manipulate your IP Address! * MUCH MUCH More!!! No matter where you live we guarantee you will get FREE internet access legally and anonymously! O N L Y ------> $24.95 Delivered (WORLDWIDE) Act NOW supplies are in Limited Supply! FAST SERVICE!!! - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS As an added BONUS! We will show you how you can make phone calls that are not traceable back to you - 100% Legal! Very handy for those important calls you don't want anyone to find out about! But you absolutely M U S T respond within 10 DAYS A N D IF you respond within 10 days we will include a FREE EMAIL ACCOUNT in your selected name! Full Details and password will be included BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS BONUS - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ORDER FORM - Print out and mail Price Each Sub-Total _____ Total # of Courses 24.95 ___________ 1 Free Email Account (Within 10 Days) 0.00 0.00 Handling (Email Only) ___________ Shipping (Add. courses +1.00) ___________ Sales Tax (CA residents 7.75%) ___________ Order total US $___________ PAYMENT BY: ___ Check ___ Money Order - US FUNDS only! LSAT Productions PO Box 2747-453 Dept. E140A2-1007-1-1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 USA SHIP TO: ______________________________ ____________________________ Name Phone Number ______________________________ ____________________________ Address Email Address ______________________________ Be sure to write address exactly City, State, Zip as it should be written on a mail piece. ______________________________ ____________________________ Country Email Alias you want WE ACCEPT US FUNDS ONLY! Please make checks payable to -> LSAT *** If you would like ONLY a FREE EMAIL ACCOUNT - Respond WITHIN 10 Days - Fill out the form completely. (US) $1.00 Handling + SASE - (INTERNATIONAL) - $2.50 Handling. ------- End of forwarded message ------- --Matt

1 0

Re: Anonymous E-mail
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:26 PM 10/8/96 -0700, Eric Murray <ericm(a)lne.com> wrote: >someone with slightly less scruples than I, and a little more time, and >their own domain name & server, might consider writing a small >program to create a few thousand accounts. Then sign them up with PINmail. >Every email address that's registered to PINmail gets you $5, right? Netscape didn't find www.PINmail.com for me, but I assume that it probably costs money to sign up for pinmail. If it's even $6, you won't win by creating a few thousand accounts for the $5 commission :-) > [privacy risks] Of course, anywhere you have a concentration of email, especially where there's bait like a promise of privacy, you have to wonder about security risks. Besides PINmail, there's www.mailmasher.com (which has a strong privacy policy), www.hotmail.com (which wants more information and may do advertising or something), and there are the big services like AOL, Compu$erve, and Prodigy. What would happen if Sameer and Lance gave in to the Dark Side? What would happen if ATTMail were taken over by TPC? Risks happen - deal with it. Darth .... (OK, so nobody but AT&T ever really used ATTMail :-) We still own the Death Star. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk Imagine if three million people voted for somebody they _knew_, and the politicians had to count them all.

1 0