December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

HP announcement re encryption (fwd)
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:27:22 -0500 (EST) >From: Ross Stapleton-Gray [email was here] Subject: HP announcement re encryption >From Reuters... for those in the DC area, it'll be at the National Press Club at 8am Monday... PALO ALTO, Calif. (Reuter) - Hewlett-Packard Co. said Friday that it will unveil a breakthrough agreement on Monday in the long-deadlocked debate over software encryption, a development that could eliminate a key impediment to the growth of electronic commerce via the Internet. A spokesman said H-P Chairman and Chief Executive Lewis Platt will provide details of a deal involving computer industry leaders, the Clinton administation and other governments at a press conference in Washington. A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

1 0

RE: Remailer Pricing
by Mullen Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Hendrickson's electrons stated >It looks like I wasn't perfectly clear again. Sorry about that. The user >does not tell anybody whether or not the mail has been read. In fact, >it's nobody's business but their own. This is the advertiser's problem, >and I don't really care whether they solve it. In fact, the user does >not have to put the remailer on the accept list. He or she just has >to tell the remailer operator that they would like to receive a dollar >(or whatever) if the remailer operator sends them any mail. Small point, but noted. I thought the word "read" was mentioned, but obviously it was "received"... Perhaps we've been thinking about anonymous mail the wrong way. Is it like the U.S. Post Office where you have to physically go someplace, buy a stamp, physically write your message, put it in a physical envelope, carry it to a box someplace, and then wait (maybe four days) for it to arrive, all for "only" 32 cents? Or is it more like Federal Express where you pay 20 bucks and it arrives the next day, for sure, every time? Earlier today somebody sent a message about his scary former employers and (apparently) how they just kill people. Would that person pay, say, $5 to have the message delivered reliably and very anonymously? My judgement is that it would be worth every penny, and probably more. >Right now the remailer network is a mess. There just aren't that many >remailers operating in a timely and reliable manner. I am not knocking >the remailer operators for this, it's just clear that "free" doesn't >make it worth their while to keep the remailers operating perfectly >at all times. Very true. This strengthens my point that the remailer operator would want a piece of the pie, as well... >A good pricing strategy for remailers would be to charge, say, $1 for >instant delivery, $.50 for 30 minute delivery, etc. To generate >interest, 4 hour delays could be imposed for free remailing, if the >resources are available. fTotalCostOfDelivery = fCostOfReceipt + nRemailersUsed * fRemailerCost Obviously, nRemailersUsed is only necessary for anonymous chaining... Don't get me wrong, there's nothing meant by this equation, no point trying to be made, nothing. I'm just showing you the pricing strategy. I strongly agree with you that paying for remailer use would greatly improve service, and would probably be a good thing. In the case of chaining, there would have to be a great deal of trust involved so none of the remailers stole all the postage w/out forwarding the message. (Just a thought, anyway) Here's an idea I was tossing around sometime earlier-- One capitalist idea that would invalidate this theory. A remailer would make a lot of money if they made a deal with an advertiser, esp. an advertising agency (containing ads for many companies, if I chose the wrong words) if they eliminated incoming postage, and possibly paid outgoing postage or had the ad agency pay the postage (within limits, of course). The remailer would then tag on advertisements to each mailing. Direct marketing (Note: This is what we're trying to avoid, but I see it happening) The non-charging remailer would become wildly popular, as they don't charge postage, and they would be fast, because they would have corporate sponsorship. This idea is *far* from being farfetched; it exists now. Every mail I receive at my free geocities account has an ad attached. Patrick

2 1

Re: Why is cryptoanarchy irreversible?
by ph＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:02 PM 11/15/1996, Bill Frantz wrote: >At 1:44 PM 11/13/96 +0000, Adam Back wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> A very good idea. There was some discussion of this kind of thing a >> while back about doing this for Singapore. The suggestion at the time >> was not to do it perfectly, but rather to arrange something simple to >> allow people to circumvent the censorship enforced through their >> compulsory use of a government censored web proxy. > I hope it is ready. To quote from William Safire's 11/14/96 NYT column: ^^^^^^^^ > "Let's run a test. "Information Technology and Political Control in > Singapore" is a paper just issued by Prof. Gary Rodan of Murdoch University > in Perth, Australia, distribued by Chalmers Johnson of the Japan Policy > Research Institute in Cardiff, Calif. It's on this web site: > http://www.nmjc.ord/jpri/. > "If Lee blocks access, Singaporeans, try E-mail: cjohnson(a)ucsd.edu. But be > careful, global business executives: the Architect of the New Century [Lee > Kuan Yew - wsf] may be monitoring everything you download." Guess Safire hits the Cypherpunks list when he needs material! Peter

1 0

Clipper 3.11 executive order
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://library.whitehouse.gov/PressReleases.cgi?date=0&briefing=4 A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

2 1

RE: Leadership and Inscrutable Deficiencies
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Vladimir Z. Nuri, in his Ancient Warrior mode: I think many people need to learn a lesson that cyberspace doesn't change certain basic realities, such as how important a dynamic leader is in forward motion in any area. but they will have plenty of opportunities to learn over the next few years and decades. and I'll be snickering in the sidelines as long as they wonder aloud why their realities are as they are and they find the deficiencies therein inscrutable. ..................................................... Oh, Nuri, you're so Morally Superior and so far above us, being more "up" than anyone on inscrutable deficiencies. I find it incredible to realize that it will take *years* in cyberspace before I learn about the immutability of basic realities (and maybe about the Incommensurability of the Diagonal, too). Definitely it will be a very, very long time before I feel the need of being led (around, by the nose?), in place of exercising self-control and reasoned judgement. .. Blanc

1 0

Mirror of new export control regulations
by Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Because it appears that the whitehouse URL changes daily for press releases, I've put a link to a copy of the text of the rules at the top of my homepage. You can also skip straight to it at: http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/nov96-regs.htm A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) Associate Professor of Law | U. Miami School of Law | froomkin(a)law.miami.edu P.O. Box 248087 | http://www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's warm here.

4 3

New Cryptography Regulations
by hallam＠vesuvius.ai.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The changes themselves are pretty technical http://docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-publications/ 1996/11/1996-11-15-exec-order-on-crypto-export-controls-administration.text http://docs.whitehouse.gov/white-house-publications/ 1996/11/1996-11-15-president-letter-on-change-in-crypto-export-control.text The main change is that from now on the decisions are to be made by the department of commerce and not by the department of state. This is probably good news since the commerce department has the interests of industry as its primary mission. There is a third document I believe but its not yet been issued. Phill

1 0

Re: ideal secure personal computer system
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:10 PM 11/15/96 -0500, Adam Gulkis wrote: >a locked startup disk is not a good idea, if it is even possible. A system file and boot blocks you know can't be written to is a wonderful aid to a comfortable sleep. For a number of things, I would like to boot off CDROM. (E.g. the program which checks the cryptographic hash of all the executables on my hard drive and delivers me a report.) >Most applications setup scratch space on the startup volume. It would be better if they set up scratch space on the writable volume with the most available space. VM/CMS provided a system call to to this in the late 1960s/early 1970s. "Modern" systems should provide a similar service. >It would >be a better idea to setup a partition for applications and lock it, if >you feel that is necessary. Norton DiskLock is a nice tool that >provides a startup password protection as well as screensaver >password. It will request a password if the machine sleeps or to >reboot after a crash. Protection against strangers walking up to your machine and using it is nice, and easy to do. Protection against viruses which install Trojan horses in your system would also be nice, but is very hard to do in systems where programs run with all the privileges of their users. Examples include (in alpha order): DOS, MacOS, Unix, and Windows (including NT). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The lottery is a tax on | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | those who can't do math. | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | - Who 1st said this? | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

2 1

Reminder -- DCCP Meeting on Saturday, November 16
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- WHAT: DC Cypherpunks Meeting WHEN: Saturday, November 16, 1996 @ 3 pm WHERE: 1050 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 850, Washington, DC (Between K and L streets) WHO: From phone on eighth floor, call to be let in WHY: A description of the crypto protocols used in the SET (Secure Electronic Transaction) standard A PGP key signing HOW: Take the orange/blue line to Farragut West, walk two blocks north (past the park), 1050 Conn. Ave will be on left Take the red line to Farragut North, exit on L street at base of 1050 Conn. Ave From Baltimore, take BaltWashExpy south. It turns into New York Avenue, which turns into Massachusetts Avenue. Take Mass. Ave westbound to Dupont Circle. Then take Connecticut Avenue southbound. 1050 Conn. Ave will be about four blocks away on your right. MORE INFO: http://www.isse.gmu.edu/~pfarrell/dccp/

1 0

Re: [REBUTTAL] Censorship on cypherpunks?, from The Netly News
by Terry Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>It just "looks" that way on the net. I do live-fucking, newsgroup >flooding, mailbombing, vote-tampering and defamation all legally, >and OPENLY on the InterNet. > >The more you PGP, the worse you look. Nobody reads your e-mail, >so stop being so paranoid. > >-aga > > Who is this idiot?

1 0