December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

rival Clipper products
by scrappo.reverb＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What somebody needs to do is make a rival for Clipper products. I propose that somebody with enough money should have a Clipper-type chip implementing Triple-DES or whatever developed and marketed. They should do the same things, except not be restricted by the government (obviously this wouldn't be for export) by the means of using weak crypto. These devices could probably be marketed to the same audience that Clipper products are aimed at, i.e. the general unsuspecting populace. The only problem I could see would be educating whoever buys into how the government is pulling the wool over their eyes. I'm sure with some funding from a major source, or some donation of time/supplies from a manufacturing company, it could be pulled off in grand fashion. Who said we can't play the government's little game? This along with some "Big Brother Inside" stickers massively propagated, and it might fly. Any insights?

2 1

re: Q.E.D.
by romana＠glamazon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You do not need to be an Einstein, a Hawking, or a von > Neumann, to understand the fundamental basis of the IPG > EUREKA algorithm. > ...they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Romana Machado romana(a)fqa.com http://www.fqa.com/romana/ http://www.glamazon.com/

1 0

Societal Policing Association (SPA) Sues Sameer!
by nobody＠replay.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: SOCIETAL POLICING ASSOCIATION SUES COMMUNITY CONNEXION!! To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Wed Oct 16 Here's what I have learned about the SPA, the Societal Policing Association, a group supported by the CyberAngels, the Family Decency OrganizatIon, and the Association of Police Chiefs. NotE their term "contributory infringement" for anyone who fails to agree to report suspicious behavior. ("A citizen-unit who neglects to perform his societal-unit duties and who stands by as thoughtcrime is committed is just as guilty as the active member of the crime.") Details are in: http://www.spa.org/thoughtcrime/orwell.htm. "Anyone who knows or should have known that he or she is witnessing, inducing, applauding or tangentially contributing to infringement of any of the moral and decency rights by another person is liable for contributor infringement. " -- posting of views critical of authority -- linking to FTP or Web sites where unauthorized viewpoints may be obtained -- informing others of FTP sites were such views may be unlawfully obtained -- aiding others in locating or using unauthorized software supporting sites upon which the above information may be obtained allowing sites where the above information may be obtained to exist on a server Then there's their Vicarious Liability for Infringement by Another Person, outlined by: "Anyone who has the authority and ability to control another person and who fails to do so is vicariously liable for the infringement of another person." *** SPA Files Morality Suits Against ISPs and End Users Internet Decency Campaign Launched (Oct.10, 1996 --Washington, D.C.) -- The Societal Policing Association (SPA) announced today that it has filed five civil lawsuits for morality violations occurring on the Internet. Three of the lawsuits were filed against Internet service providers (ISPs), and the remaining two were filed against individual end users. Additionally, SPA launched its Internet Decency Campaign, which includes education and enforcement components, in an effort to educate and work cooperatively with ISPs regarding morality and decency violations. ISPs who immediately enroll their employee-units in decency reeducation programs and who agree to participate in SPA's program to stamp out illegal thoughts will receive immunity from SPA lawsuits and will receive a pro rata share of the collected loot from other ISPs sued by the SPA. ISP lawsuits were filed on Oct. 7 and 8 against Community ConneXion of Oakland, Calif.; GeoCities of Beverly Hills, Calif.; and Tripod Inc. of Williamstown, Mass. The SPA members named as plaintiffs in all three suits were the Christian Coalition, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith and the Million Aryan March. In each case, SPA first contacted the ISP and requested that the offensive thoughts be purged, but the ISPs cited the notoriously Communistic "First Amendment" and the anti-Christian "Electronic and Communications Privacy Act" and refused to cooperate. "These lawsuits send a clear signal to ISPs and end users that neither so-called "free thinking" nor failure to pay our protection fee will be tolerated. The Internet does not provide a safe haven for these types of activities," said Emmanuel Goldstein, SPA Reichsfuhrer. "Our intentions are to work cooperatively with ISPs. A key element of the IAPC is the ISP Political Reeducation Program devoted to alerting ISPs to their potential state of sin and providing them with the tools and moral guidance to save themselves," said Winston Smith, SPA's Reeducation Coordinator. --Keyser Soze, Political Reporter -- --

1 0

Re: Q.E.D.
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:28 PM 10/16/96 -0500, IPG Sales wrote (original at excessive length): > ... IPG has produced a system to generate software OTPs, > albeit it within limited but but more than ample entropy, not > software random numbers. > > We stipulate the obvious fact that the encryptor stream > generated by EUREKA is a PRNG stream, though we do consider > it gross denigration to castigate it as ONLY a PRNG stream. > It is a PRNG issue that also happens to be an extremely well > behaved OTP sequence, with limited but ample entropy, as well. The problem is you are misusing the term One Time Pad. > It meets each and every criteria rationally established for an > OTP in all reasonable aspects. One of the criteria for a OTP is that you can credibly claim that ANY plain text (of the correct length) is a valid decryption of a cyphertext encrypted with a OTP. Since your PRNG has less entropy than the message, there are output sequences that can not occur. Therefore there are plaintext messages which have no possible key. These messages are not credible decryptions and the PRNG is not a OTP. This criterion is directly related to the provable security of the OTP. As such it is certainly a rationally established criterion. Now your PRNG may be a reasonably secure cypher system. (I haven't looked at it.) However it isn't an OTP and should not be advertised as such. Doing so makes people familar with the field think you don't know what you are talking about. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Tired of Dole/Clinton? | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | Vote 3rd party. I'm | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | Voting for Harry Browne | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: The Utility of Privacy
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:57 AM 11/18/96 -0800, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: > >At 8:38 PM 11/17/1996, Huge Cajones Remailer wrote: >>> 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. Risks of not employing privacy techniques: 1) You might have to pay 30%+ of your income in taxes. 2) Your driver's license might be capable of being suspended. 3) Your children will be more likely to be grabbed by Child Protective Services. 4) You are *much* more likely to come to the attention of the authorities. 5) Your usenet posts on gun control may be reported to the local sheriff's office and an armed agent of the state may call you. 6) You may be dunned by debt collectors. 7) Your property will be at greater risk of forfeiture to the government or loss to private litigation. 8) You may have to pay thousands of dollars a year in auto insurance. 9) You are more likely to lose a job because of something your employer finds out about you. 10) If you live in a "non-attainment area" your older car may fail emissions inspection. That's all for now. I've got a million of them. DCF

1 0

re: accutrade
by mixmaster＠remail.obscura.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hacking the 9 digit account number and 4 digit PIN will be easier than attacking the OS directly. Either method though would certainly ring loud bells at Accutrade unless they are infected with headinbutt disease.

2 1

Re: POC_ket
by Bryondp＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Take me off the list!!!!

2 1

CDT Policy Post 2.38 - President Takes First Steps TowardsClipper 3.1.1
by Bob Palacios 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- _____ _____ _______ / ____| __ \__ __| ____ ___ ____ __ | | | | | | | | / __ \____ / (_)______ __ / __ \____ _____/ /_ | | | | | | | | / /_/ / __ \/ / / ___/ / / / / /_/ / __ \/ ___/ __/ | |____| |__| | | | / ____/ /_/ / / / /__/ /_/ / / ____/ /_/ (__ ) /_ \_____|_____/ |_| /_/ \____/_/_/\___/\__, / /_/ \____/____/\__/ The Center for Democracy and Technology /____/ Volume 2, Number 38 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- A briefing on public policy issues affecting civil liberties online ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CDT POLICY POST Volume 2, Number 38 November 18, 1996 CONTENTS: (1) President Takes First Steps Towards Clipper 3.1.1 (2) Details of the Executive Order (3) How to Subscribe/Unsubscribe (4) About CDT, contacting us ** This document may be redistributed freely with this banner intact ** Excerpts may be re-posted with permission of <editor(a)cdt.org> ** This document looks best when viewed in COURIER font ** ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) PRESIDENT TAKES FIRST STEPS TOWARDS CLIPPER 3.1.1 In a move that leaves major unanswered questions about the privacy of global communications on the Internet, President Clinton has taken the first concrete steps towards implementing the government's controversial key recovery encryption proposal. On Friday November 15, the President appointed an ambassador-level "Special Envoy for Cryptography" and signed an Executive Order that gives the Commerce Department jurisdiction over encryption exports but includes the Justice Department in all such export decisions. These developments do little to change the underlying regulations on encryption that have prevented the development of a strong worldwide encryption standard needed to protect privacy and security on the Internet. The full text of the executive order and other relevant background materials are available on CDT's Encryption Policy Page: http://www.cdt.org/crypto/ Friday's White House announcements demonstrate the Administration's commitment to its dangerous key recovery approach to worldwide encryption. This approach fails to meet the fundamental privacy needs of computer users and industry because: * International communications are still vulnerable since products sold by the dominant U.S. hardware and software manufacturers must conform to U.S. export controls. * Key recovery won't protect privacy internationally and institutionalizes a global government surveillance mechanism without privacy safeguards. * U.S. exports are still controlled and uncompetitive making it harder for the market to develop a secure global encryption standard. The Administration policy, initially announced on October 1st and dubbed "Clipper 3.1.1," leaves Internet users without the technical means to secure their communications or the international legal standards needed to protect their privacy. In other developments this week, Hewlett-Packard and other companies announced preliminary approval to export new "dormant encryption" products, which contain strong encryption that can only be activated with a special license. While this new architecture is expected to make it easier for industry to market encryption products, this technology does not change the underlying privacy problems created by the Administration's export control policy. Granting of licenses to use strong encryption will still be subject to the current export controls limiting key length and requiring key recovery for strong encryption. CONTINUING A DANGEROUS KEY RECOVERY POLICY The Administration's announcements mark the first real steps towards implementing an approach to encryption policy based on the dangerous and untested idea of global key recovery. This approach would institutionalize worldwide governmental access to encrypted communications without providing any privacy standards for electronic communications or stored data. The Administration's approach leaves computer users at risk operating on a global network without the technical security provided by strong encryption or the legal privacy rights afforded here in the United States by the Fourth Amendment and federal law. For example, the Administration policy would not solve the following privacy problems: * International communications are still vulnerable. For example, an American individual doing business with someone in France would still be forced to use weaker forms of encryption, or use key recovery systems that make their communications accessible to law enforcement officials of both countries. * Key recovery won't protect privacy internationally. A Chinese dissident communicating with supporters in the U.S. and fearful of weaker encryption would be to forced to use key recovery. The Administration indicates that such key recovery mechanisms would be based on bilateral key-access arrangements between governments. Even if the dissident's keys were recoverable only in the U.S., such a global key access policy would almost certainly make those keys accessible to the Chinese government. If the United States expects China to assist U.S. law enforcement with key recovery for issues of national interest, such as anti-piracy efforts in China, we can also expect China to require U.S. disclosure of keys to its law enforcement community. * Exports are still controlled and uncompetitive. A Japanese company using exportable U.S. encryption products would be forced to use lower strength encryption -- or use an key recovery agent approved by the U.S. law enforcement community. This is unlikely to help the global market develop a worldwide standard for secure communications. As a result of this policy, computer users all over the world will be left with a lowest common denominator infrastructure that does not provide for either technical security or legal privacy for sensitive communications and data. CDT believes that any workable U.S. encryption policy must be designed to protect the privacy and security of Internet users. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (2) DETAILS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER The Executive Order signed by the President on Friday does not change the type of encryption products that will be exportable. Rather, it lays the groundwork for the eventual transfer of encryption export control jurisdiction from the State Department to the Commerce Department pending Final Regulations by both departments. Encryption exports have traditionally been regulated as "munitions" controlled by the State Department. While the Commerce Department is widely viewed as more sensitive to the needs of business and individual encryption users, Commerce is still constrained by Administration encryption policy. Additional provisions of the Executive Order indicate that the Commerce Department's encryption controls will continue to be dominated by law enforcement and national security interests: * New Justice Department role in export review committee -- In an unusual step, the Order adds the Justice Department to the interagency group reviewing Commerce encryption export decisions. * Source code treated as a "product" -- The Order specifically singles out encryption source code to be given the stricter review scrutiny of a "product" rather than a "technology." * Broad definition of export -- The export of encryption source code or object code is extended to explicitly include posting to FTP sites or electronic bulletin boards unless "adequate" precautions are taken to prevent transfer abroad. As reflected by a recent Federal Court finding in the CDA indecency case that Internet users rarely have control over the parties accessing materials via FTP, Usenet, or the Web, this provision could have the chilling effect of preventing most dissemination or discussion of new cryptographic tools on the Internet. The Administration's announcements will have little effect on the existing encryption privacy problem unless the underlying policies governing the export and use of encryption are changed. These announcements do little to address the unanswered questions about how privacy will be protected in the key recovery system envisioned by the Administration. APPOINTMENT OF THE "SPECIAL ENVOY FOR CRYPTOGRAPHY" On Friday the President also designated Ambassador David L. Aaron as the new "Special Envoy for Cryptography." According to the White House, this Special Envoy will have "responsibility to promote the growth of electronic commerce and robust, secure global communications in a manner that protects the public safety and national security. . . . Ambassador Aaron will promote international cooperation, coordinate U.S. contacts with foreign governments on encryption matters and provide a focal point for identifying and resolving bilateral and multilateral encryption issues." Ambassador Aaron is currently the U.S. Ambassador to the OECD. CDT hopes that the new Special Envoy, as a representative of the United States, will work to represent the needs of Americans to communicate privately in the currently insecure global environment. Until now, U.S. encryption representation abroad has been dominated by law enforcement and national security interests. CDT hopes that the new Special Envoy will also consult with the computer user community, consumers, privacy advocates, and industry to promote their need for secure networks worldwide. NEXT STEPS In the coming months, both the Department of Commerce and the State Department must issue rules to implement the Administration's new encryption policy. * The State Department will issue a rule transferring its jurisdiction of encryption licensing to the Commerce Department. * The Commerce Department will issue rules spelling out exactly how it will approve products for export, and what the requirements for approved key recovery centers and key recovery plans will look like. CDT hopes and expects that the Administration will provide an opportunity for public comment in the rulemaking process to allow input from those concerned about privacy and security in the formulation of U.S. encryption policy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ (3) SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION Be sure you are up to date on the latest public policy issues affecting civil liberties online and how they will affect you! Subscribe to the CDT Policy Post news distribution list. CDT Policy Posts, the regular news publication of the Center For Democracy and Technology, are received by nearly 10,000 Internet users, industry leaders, policy makers and activists, and have become the leading source for information about critical free speech and privacy issues affecting the Internet and other interactive communications media. To subscribe to CDT's Policy Post list, send mail to policy-posts-request(a)cdt.org with a subject: subscribe policy-posts If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, send mail to the above address with a subject of: unsubscribe policy-posts ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (4) ABOUT THE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY/CONTACTING US The Center for Democracy and Technology is a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, DC. The Center's mission is to develop and advocate public policies that advance democratic values and constitutional civil liberties in new computer and communications technologies. Contacting us: General information: info(a)cdt.org World Wide Web: URL:http://www.cdt.org/ FTP URL:ftp://ftp.cdt.org/pub/cdt/ Snail Mail: The Center for Democracy and Technology 1634 Eye Street NW * Suite 1100 * Washington, DC 20006 (v) +1.202.637.9800 * (f) +1.202.637.0968 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- End Policy Post 2.38 11/18/96 -----------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

REQUESTING INFORMATION :-)
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

f'knights, [hee hee] (as in c'punks)!!! ROTFL After the amusing invasion of Sandy-the-cowboy in his attempt to smash open the already open doors of a virtual (i.e. non-existent) salloon... (in the Freedom-Knights list) (which is a waste of time anyway to watch his show anyway)... :-) I REQUEST INFORMATION on those people who compile "Unemployability Lists" in the USA, as well as ANY other information on this issue. Senator McCarthy managed to terrorize the entire U.S.A. some decades ago with such lists (on real paper rather than on computer files). The "Return to NeoMcCarthyanism" would make an _excellent_ story for the Greek Newspaper "Eleftherotypia", and some bright young Greek journalist could seize the opportunity perhaps even for a Headline Story. Therefore, I include in the recipient list the Greek Newspaper's Internet Supplement address, and... rub my hands, waiting for your replies, folks. :-) We Greeks would like ALL the names of the people who act as "Informers" of companies denouncing those unfortunate Americans who are doomed to unemployment. We plan to give these names to all our friends, so as to warn them WHO to avoid during our summer holidays in Greek Islands. Thank you George A. Stathis (former columnist in "PC Master" magazine, Athens Greece -1990). P.S. I wrote each month's MAIN article at the time, and also the monthly "A.I." program. I am not active in journalism at the moment, which is why someone else is welcome to use the ensuing information. P.S. TRUST GREEKS. We hold a World Copyright on Freedom of Thought for 2.500 years or more, and we even donated it to the Public Domain! :-)

1 0

Re: Fuck You Dumb Cunt
by George A. Stathis 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:11 ìì 18/11/1996 -0500, Stephen Boursy wrote: >Dave Hayes wrote: >> >> Brian Davis writes: >> >>> I'm especially sorry that some of you don't believe in property >>> rights. >> >> I believe in them, alright. It's just that they seem to be at odds >> with freedom of speech. >> >> They are at odds with a lot of other things as well, but that's >> a different fla...er...discussion. > > > I believe the posession of property is a priv. to be taken >away if abused. There is no such thing as a 'right' to >property--in fact the very notion seems absurd. > > Steve Philosophically, a lot of people would agree with you Steve, and this would probably place them in dozens of "killfiles", "lists of unemployable persons", plug-pullable minorities of "kooks" and so on, inside the American Section of the Internet. No wonder (after malicious slander I have seen directed against you), that so few people come out with such views. However... Reality has many facets, and property can mean many things. "Abusing property" is also punishable already by some (very capitalistic) laws. I know I deserve everything I own, but do the chicken know it? The chicken who hide behind roles like Gilmore's for instance. Surely the ONLY things we most CERTAINLY own, are our bodies and our speech and other facets of our existence. If people were offered large sums of money to cut off one... hand, they'd probably refuse! :-) Goddess Venus knows why if a lot of people when offered similar similar sums of money to chop off their speech, they obey. I am very troubled at recent events and spend my time wasting yours. But wait till you see what I figured out... :-) (with the Greek paper). George

1 0