December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: A word on "emergencies" [WAS Re: Final Solution to the Crypto ]
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Michael Froomkin wrote: >Rather, my point is a simple one. The fact that the President has >declared an emergency here is primarily a technical legal event. It is >not a sign that martial law is about to be declared, that they are coming >to take you or your [fill in blank] away, or that anything fundamental has >changed. Multi-year emergencies in which the executive uses one statute >to compensate for the Congressional decision/failure to pass another >statute is not, I submit, a particularly telling sign of a mature and >healthy democracy. But this goes to large and gradual processes, not to >anything that suddenly happened. Thanks for the steady-hand reassurance. Your papers are balm. Was it not Hal's original ironic lament about the current charade -- that it's business as usual among the jaded insiders who are confident that they know how power really works. The disdain for public accountability -- cynical extension of declared emegencies well past their time -- is what breeds the desire of outsiders to protect themselves from insiders. Hence, the desire for crypto, especially the cryptanalytic kind that ventilates those privileged inside communications. The battle may be between cryptogologists and lawyers, it seems to me, the struggle for supremacy between privacy-protecting code and privilege-protecting secrecy. Hoary national security proclamations have become much more lethal munitions than cryptography, and it is these incitements that need ... what, X-rating? What can be done to supplant these thrilling, crowd- rousing proclamations of national threats -- ancient, vulgar strategems around the globe?

1 0

Re: Could Declan or some libertarian explain this?
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: >Could someone explain to me why we have to have *any* censorship, if >people on a list are given tools to filter with and reminded on occasion >how to use them? You are the reason, you can't shut up and you have little or nothing to say. plonk.

1 0

Re: The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:11 AM 11/17/1996, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > >> Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 18:22:33 -0800 >> From: Huge Cajones Remailer <nobody(a)huge.cajones.com> >> To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com >> Subject: The Utility of Privacy >> >> >> Privacy is a hassle. Is it worth it? >> >> Which unfortunate situations does privacy prevent? What are the odds >> that they will occur? How much effort will it take to prevent these >> outcomes? As a model, use the present and future situation of a >> typical reader of this list. > >Insurance is a hassle. Is it worth it? > >Which unfortunate situations does insurance prevent? What are the odds >that they will occur? How much effort will it take to prevent these >outcomes? As a model, use the present and future situation of a >typical reader of this list. I know many people who were happy they had insurance due to car accidents, health problems, or whatever. What is more, the odds of these events are carefully calculated and available. Call an actuary. Are there similar sources of information calculating privacy risk? I don't think so. Informally, I don't know anybody who has suffered due to a loss of privacy. It may be the case that it is politically beneficial to have a society of privacy fanatics. But, this is different from the direct benefit to each participant. My question remains unanswered, probably because privacy isn't worth the effort.

4 3

Re: The Utility of Privacy
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:49 PM 11/16/1996, Hal Finney wrote: >David Brin has an article in the December issue of Wired arguing that >privacy is obsolete and was never that great an idea in the first place. >Maybe you'd say that all of these people should expose their secrets, or have >them exposed for them, and that the world would be a better place. (Actually, >you do seem to say this, and I'll discuss it later.) >I really don't think we have any right to second-guess the decisions people >have made about what they will reveal and what they will keep private. This is not my claim. If free citizens go to the trouble of protecting their privacy, good for them. How important is it that I should do so?

1 0

GIV_eus
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

11-16-96. WaPo: "Air Force Halts Merger of SAIC and Aerospace. Feared Change Could Affect Spy Program." Aerospace has analyzed all aspects of the nation's super-secret satellite and rocket programs, as well as space companies' most sensitive proprietary data. The Air Force's clubby classified space office feared changing Aerospace's status could disrupt operations. Many defense contractors have complained about such feared contracts for insiders, begging: god, give us. ----- http://jya.com/giveus.txt (4 kb) GIV_eus

1 0

Re: AGA'S LIMITED VOCABULARY
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:37 ðì 17/11/1996 -0500, aga wrote: >> about the use of technology to protect privacy. Perhaps you >> were confusing it with that other list you are on: >> alt.sex.yourmother. > >No, it is your mother I have been fucking. Pity! Aga should respong to this lady's needs FIRST! :-) BTW, (paraphrasing Speedy Gonzales)... I think she really fucks for money, but since you are an aga she'll fuck you for nothing! :-) >> > What year did you graduate from Law School? >> >> Irrelevant, but it was 1975. More importantly, though, when did >> YOU graduate from law school? > >1975. And my school was better than your school. > >I was the fucking class President in Law School. We >fucked on Library tables at Pitt. Where the fuck did >you go to school? I can see the beginnings of an... S/M cyber-romance in these lines. ROTFL!!! Aga should not forget to carry a... cane in his briefcase. The more arrogant they sound at first, the more submissive their fantasies are! (ALL masochists in fact). :-) Love and Jelly Babies George P.S. My first guess is that Sandy is a Piscean, and Aga is a Taurus. It would work out better with him being a Scorpio or a Leo, however. (My second guesses on Aga). My second guess on Sandy is that she's a Virgo, however. In this case avoid her at all costs! ROTFL!!!!

1 0

Re: A word on "emergencies" [WAS Re: Final Solution to the Crypto ]
by nobody＠cypherpunks.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Professor Michael Froomkin penned, amid the "freedom knight" noise: <snip> >my point is a simple one. The fact that the President has >declared an emergency here is primarily a technical legal event. It is >not a sign that martial law is about to be declared, that they are coming >to take you or your [fill in blank] away, or that anything fundamental has >changed. OK, let's fill in the blank. Gun. I have heard noises that sound like you wouldn't mind this, even though I am totally peaceful and would never want to shoot anyone absent extreme provocation (such as armed invasion of my home). The way I see it, martial law could be declared at any time, or it could slowly be declared now, which I think is happening. Checkpoints and house-searches for drugs and drunks are to get us used to checkpoints and house-searches for guns and unauthorised crypto. This is only my opinion, and I fear revealing my identity publicly because people with guns are starting to get used to hiding our emotions if we are peaceful and harmless, like me. I rarely even go to the range and practice anymore (2-4 times a year). I can imagine my kids feeling the same way about sending messages with strong crypto protection. >Multi-year emergencies in which the executive uses one statute >to compensate for the Congressional decision/failure to pass another >statute is not, I submit, a particularly telling sign of a mature and >healthy democracy. But this goes to large and gradual processes, not to >anything that suddenly happened. Why am I thinking about boiling frogs now?

1 0

Re: Crypto Bounties: Another Thought that crossed my mind.
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric Hughes gave a two-part presentation at DEFCON IV, which he has subsequently polished up, that addresses: 1. ways to implement a Universal Priacy System that enables simple and anonymous data hiding using the existing Net facilites, and 2. a system of intellectual property distribution and funding which is based more closely on models used in Hollywood (e.g., completion bonds). Eric, what's the status of your proposal? -- Steve >Here we go again: > > There are is a lot of software that we would all like to see >developed and deployed right? > > There are a lot of people out there who write code, sometimes >even freely redistributable code, but they have to eat, and get their >net access right? > > Well, I was thinking, what if a "Crypto Software Bounty Server" >were set up, so that someone could propose a tool that they would like >to see, along with an initial bounty. Others could contribute toward that >bounty (anonymously if they wish) until either the tool was delivered. > > The original issuer sets standards for the software (i.e. "easy to >use interface to mixmaster remailers for Macintosh", then must define >easy to use; Software considered delivered when in [alpha beta late-beta >&etc.]). The first to present software meeting these qualifications gets >the bounty, with the caviate that the software must be either gnu-copylefted, >or some similar "free use" copyright, after all, "The Net" paid for it... > > Some of the problems (and potential solutions) I can think of in this: > > 1) Refusing to honor the contract--Maybe when a project is proposed, > some other people (for a small percentage of the total) sign on > as judges. When they feel that it reached the stated goal, then > it is done. -Or- Money put up is non-refundable, and the bounty > stays in the "bank" until claimed. > > 2) If the money stays in the bank until claimed, people might not > put up that much (or enough) to make a specific project worthwile-- > > This could be solved by allowing the "bounty" to lapse in one > of 3 ways: > > A) <x> length of time after the initial proposal (bad because > i) someone could already be working on it; ii) bad because > other people might add to the bounty, so a potential programmer > might not start until the "pot" has grown to a certain level. > > B) <x> length of time after the last addition to the bounty, > bad for both i & ii above. > > These can both be gotten around (and other problems) by allowing > programmers to "register" with the service that they are working > on a project (either anonymous registery, so that people will > still contribute to the project, or list those registered so > that people know [if who] someone is working on it) > > 3) Funding: The server (in both the machine and the organizational sense) > could be funded by: > > A) Interest on the money accumulated. > > B) A percentage of the bounty (say 10%) > > C) Both A & B. > >Has anything like this been proposed before? I know that the FSF (IIRC) accepts >contributions, but I am thinking of something more targeted, more "market >driven" if you will. > >This could be expanded to non-crypto software as well, just think, if half >the X Window users ponied up $5 a peice for a "good, easy to use non-motif >word processor", how long do you think it would take for someone to start >coding a MS Word killer? > >Comments? > > >Petro, Christopher C. >petro(a)suba.com <prefered for any non-list stuff> >snow(a)smoke.suba.com

1 0

Strong Encryption for International Versions of Netscape
by Scott Weisman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 17, 1996 ANNOUNCING STRONG ENCRYPTION FOR INTERNATIONAL VERSIONS OF NETSCAPE JERUSALEM, Israel -- SecureScape Technologies announces the alpha release of its first product, SecureScape. This revolutionary program offers international users of Netscape Navigator the same strong encryption as that enjoyed by users in North America. All software encryption products developed in the United States are subject to export restrictions. Such exported software is subject to an arbitrary 40-bit key length, compared to the 128-bit (or greater) key length commonly found in domestic software. This weakened software is in certain ways inferior to no encryption at all, since it gives users a false sense of security. The Executive Order by President Clinton on November 15, which modifies U.S. Government policy on export restrictions, still requires requests for export permits to be considered on a case by case basis. Furthermore, it is very likely that strong encryption products will be granted export permits conditional on key-escrow or other compromise arrangements, because the Executive Order states, "the export of encryption software . . . must be controlled . . . such software shall not be considered or treated as 'technology'." Implying that encryption software is still considered a form of munitions. The irony, of course, is that strong encryption has been widely and easily available outside of the U.S. for years. SecureScape was developed using the freely available SSLeay library, developed by Eric Young of Australia. SecureScape Technologies was founded by Scott Weisman, a software developer residing in Jerusalem, to develop and market Internet security products. The company is seeking investors interested in a strategic partnership. The SecureScape home page is located at <http://www.SecureScape.com/secscape/>. SecureScape currently works with Netscape versions 1.1 or later on the Windows 95 and Windows NT platforms. CONTACT: Scott Weisman P.O.B. 31194 Jerusalem 91311 ISRAEL sweisman(a)SecureScape.com © 1996 Scott Weisman - All Rights Reserved. Netscape and Netscape Navigator are trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation. Microsoft, Windows, and Windows NT are trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. SecureScape uses software developed by Eric Young (eay(a)mincom.oz.au)

1 0

Unsubscriving Briefly
by mpd＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm unsubscriving from the list for a few days (weeks?) until the noise level drops down a bit. I'll check it periodically on the Web and I'm pretty sure that if something happens that shakes the world of cryptography to its very foundations, someone will probably send me some email about it. Please continue to party while I am away. -- Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $

2 1