December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: New crypto regulations (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi all, Forwarded message: > Date: Mon, 30 Dec 1996 15:57:28 -0800 > From: Mark Johnson <mark(a)hercules.reno.nv.us> > > To hell with it, lets just send it over a modem and claim its Analog not > electronic transfer. If MA-Bell (or sibling) wants to change it from > Analog to Digital for overseas transfer then THEY can go after MA-Bell. > Then if we can't do that then we would not even be allowed to discuss > cryptography (code) verbally as it all gets transformed to electrons now > anyway. The distinction between analog and digital is a technicality and not a distinction I want my civil liberties hanging from. An analog signal is just a digital signal with a word length greater than the resolution of the machine. Also one can claim that because electricity is carried by distinct charges it is digital. Counter this is that the charges themselves can take on multiplicity of ranges. A digital signal is just a analog signal of on and off, direct current one might say that is simply turned on and off. Ad nausium... > What is the difference between me reading(using sound waves) code line > by line to John Doe versus having my computer(using sound waves) > communicating to John Does's computer,Tape Recorder(high quality), or > his well atuned ear which understands MODEMese (or was that MODEMonics)? Realisticaly nothing. The real discussion going on here, broken into a multiplicity of special interests pov's, is whether we as individuals have a right to communicate to each other and exactly under what conditions that communication can be monitored, manipulated, prohibited, etc. Balancing the theory behind democracy and multiplicity of views versus the prohibition of various types of acts, distinct and class(ical), which pose threats to individuals, groups, and potentialy national interests is the point... If looked at rationaly, saying I can tell you something if written in a particular code, alphabetic and artistic issues at point, on a certain type of material is ok while if I transfer the identical information using some other code and media it is not is looney tunes. The 'control' types would like us to believe that media is the real issue here, not what is actualy being said. A point easily confused by somebody who doesn't know what the word(s) mean. A very popular view, and not one I consider 'bad', is that we should err on the side of safety. This means that we don't change the status quo too fast. Not necessarily because we like the results being measured in human misery but because while we might relieve their misery in the short term we might 'unbalance' the political situation. History is rife with the results of such periods. However, I balance this with the realisation that once it is clear something needs to be done it is better to go ahead and commit to the results even though we recognise a priori that some results may not necessarily be to our liking. We just have to deal with them when we figure out which ones they are. The trick between these two is to find a 'litmus test' which will provide an observer some sort of measure of their position between the two (or more) positions. Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Crypto reg clarification from Commerce Department
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Lucky Green wrote: >I just got of the phone with Bruce Kutz, Export Policy Analyst, Office of >Strategic Trade and Foreign Policy Controls. (202) 482-0092. He seems to be >the contact person for the new regs. Well done, Lucky. This is what's needed to kick off a lot of commentary during the next 45-days. Backed by research, to be sure. The outpouring of such commentary on the full EAR from May 1995 to March 1996 shaped the final document, and that process is an excellent case study for how to affect the final form of the latest crypto regs. It's worth perusing the full EAR in the Federal Register: March 25, 1996 (Volume 61, Number 58), Pages 12713 et seq. for 325 pages (well over a 2.5MB -- it's also on our site, see URL below). Here's the portion of the EAR that Lucky and Kutz discussed: [Page 12805] Sec. 744.6 Restrictions on certain activities of U.S. persons. (a) General prohibitions--(1) Activities related to exports. (i) No U.S. person as defined in paragraph (c) of this section may, without a license from BXA, export, reexport, or transfer to or in any country other country, any item where that person knows that such item: (A) Will be used in the design, development, production, or use of nuclear explosive devices in or by a country listed in Country Group D:2 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR). (B) Will be used in the design, development, production, or use of missiles in or by a country listed in Country Group D:4 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR); or (C) Will be used in the design, development, production, stockpiling, or use of chemical or biological weapons in or by a country listed in Country Group D:3 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR). (ii) No U.S. person shall, without a license from BXA, knowingly support an export, reexport, or transfer that does not have a license as required by this section. Support means any action, including financing, transportation, and freight forwarding, by which a person facilitates an export, reexport, or transfer without being the actual exporter or reexporter. (2) Other activities unrelated to exports. No U.S. person shall, without a license from BXA: (i) Perform any contract, service, or employment that the U.S. person knows will directly assist in the design, development, production, or use of missiles in or by a country listed in Country Group D:4 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR); or (ii) Perform any contract, service, or employment that the U.S. person knows directly will directly assist in the design, development, production, stockpiling, or use of chemical or biological weapons in or by a country listed in Country Group D:3 (see Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR). (3) Whole plant requirement. No U.S. person shall, without a license from BXA, participate in the design, construction, export, or reexport of a whole plant to make chemical weapons precursors identified in ECCN 1C350, in countries other than those listed in Country Group A:3 (Australia Group) (See Supplement No. 1 to part 740 of the EAR). (b) Additional prohibitions on U.S. persons informed by BXA. BXA may inform U.S. persons, either individually or through amendment to the EAR, that a license is required because an activity could involve the types of participation and support described in paragraph (a) of this section anywhere in the world. Specific notice is to be given only by, or at the direction of, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. When such notice is provided orally, it will be followed by a written notice within two working days signed by the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Export Administration. However, the absence of any such notification does not excuse the exporter from compliance with the license requirements of paragraph (a) of this section. (c) Definition of U.S. person. For purposes of this section, the term U.S. person includes: (1) Any individual who is a citizen of the United States, a permanent resident alien of the United States, or a protected individual as defined by 8 U.S.C. 1324b(a)(3); (2) Any juridical person organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States, including foreign branches; and (3) Any person in the United States. (d) Exceptions. No License Exceptions apply to the prohibitions described in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section. (e) License review standards. Applications to engage in activities otherwise prohibited by this section will be denied if the activities would make a material contribution to the design, development, production, stockpiling, or use of chemical or biological weapons, or of missiles. ----- The EAR covers all kinds of exports, so encryption and cryptography provisions are found by searching. The Federal Register published it in seven 50 page chunks, and is available at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces140.html Enter the search term: "Page 12713" (with quotes; repeat six times in sequence). We've combined the seven parts for searching: http://jya.com/ear032596.txt (2,570K)

1 0

what is a law if it cant be enforced?
by mrwilhe＠odin.cmp.ilstu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

can our gov possibly enforce this crypto law? --esp over the net? I think what happend is the dod released the net (arpanet/Internet) to the people without looking at the implications that could arise. The people now control the net and not the gov--and they don't like it! anyway our government is ruled by the people for the people--so we should not have any kind of special laws--ones that only apply to the net and not the rest of the world, after all we have a thing called free speech! fsh

1 0

CAVE
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CAVE is available at URL: http://www.replay.com/mirror/cave/ Enjoy, -AJ-

1 0

RE: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Ross Wright This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. May's offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. I have made overtures towards peace and tried to explain that I thought that the Doctor's verbal slapping was not as bad as it seemed, maybe even he deserved it!. He refuses to answer. He's just a pussy, I guess. Like's to make terroristic threats. To Nam vets, yet. Ballsy, Tim! ....................................................... You have to understand - Tim is from California. In some areas of the country showing someone your middle finger is the universal hand signal for "shoot me". If you are carrying a gun and give such a hand signal you likely to be held at fault if the shooting does start. If you choose to carry, you will be held to a higher standard of behavior than those that don't. -Greg Hamilton- Self Defense Instructor Nov. 19, 1995 .. Blanc

3 2

None
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:41 AM 12/25/1996, Anonymous wrote that Noam Chomsky said: >More than ever, libertarian socialist ideas are relevant, and the >population is very much open to them. Despite a huge mass of corporate >propaganda, outside of educated circles, people still maintain pretty much >their traditional attitudes. In the US, for example, more than 80% of the >population regard the economic system as inherently unfair and the >political system as a fraud, which serves the special interests, not the >people. Overwhelming majorities think working people have too little voice >in public affairs (the same is true in England), that the government has >the responsibility of assisting people in need, that spending for education >and health should take precedence over budget-cutting and tax cuts, that >the current Republican proposals that are sailing through Congress benefit >the rich and harm the general population, and so on. Intellectuals may tell >a different story, but it's not all that difficult to find out the facts. Can anybody explain in what way Chomsky is an anarchist or a libertarian? Opposition to some government schemes but not others makes a Republican or a Democrat, not an anarchist or libertarian. Chomsky is a smart man. What's he up to? Sir Galahad

3 2

US AIRFORCE SITE HACKED
by BJORN2LUZE＠prodigy.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It is true, so many government sites have been hacked! The FBI home page was replaced with SATANIC stuff. A picture of the upside down cross as a background and various other changes regarding SATAN. i think it's funny, but hey it's our own goverment. I wonder how often they check their sites. BTW, my friends site - http://pages.prodigy.com/VT/hackersguide has a link to the FBI's MOST WANTED LIST. See if you are there!

2 1

No Subject
by Bovine Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Parents who send their children to government operated schools should read this: http://www.fni.com/heritage/nov96/Exams.html

1 0

Re: (Fwd) Re: Mr. May's Posts. Other Things.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:33 PM 12/30/96 -0800, Ross Wright wrote: >This is the message I got in response to my post regarding Mr. May's >offensive, racist, and bigoted post about ebonics. His comments were not "offensive, racist, and bigoted." They were funny, intentionally so. The whole "Ebonics" issue is a hilarious example of political-correctness gone mad. Interestingly, Jesse Jackson tried to make it look like the blacks were the victims, the ones most offended by the actions of the Oakland schools people. Embarrassed, maybe, victims no. (A friend of mine greatly prefers the term, "Niglish." I try hard to not be so...coarse.) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Responsibility
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mike Duvos writes: >Brent E. Turvey (bturvey(a)connix.com) wrote: > >: This NG is not a certified twelve-step program operating under >: anonymity. This is not even a group of people in recovery operating >: under any kind of professional guidance at all. It is in essence a >: PUBLIC FORUM on a given topic. There are no secrets, and no reasonable >: expectation of privacy. There is also no necessitation for legal >: confidance. > >This has been discussed before. Most people are aware of how Usenet >works, and people who don't want their posts linked to their real >life identities can post anonymously. > >: It's also unmoderated. Anyone can look in at any time that they want and >: review any posts current and past that they see fit thanks to the good >: people at Dejanews. And anyone can post whatever they want. > >Yup. > >: However there are a number of individuals engaged in exploitative >: behaviors with the survivors here and other places on the net. Any >: therapist or other certified mental health professional can give you a >: better and more complete definition of "exploitative behaviors" than I >: could do here. > >Changing our tune a bit, aren't we Brent? The infamous list was >advertised as a list of predatory offenders and abusers. Now it >seems to be just a list of people whose Usenet interactions with >others you choose to characterize as "exploitative." > >: It is mainly for the reason of professional ethics and responsibility >: that I posted the list of people to be careful of earlier this month. >: Incumbent in that responsibility is my desire to offer potential victims >: a survival tool. > >Quite frankly, Brent, you offering the survivors in this newsgroup a >"survival tool" is much like a person on fire offering a gathering of >penguins an ice cube. The patrons of this newsgroup are Past Masters >of survival. You, on the other hand, are a master only of sticking >your foot into one bodily opening, while simultaneously sticking your >head up another. > >: By posting that list, I made it totally available to not >: only the frequent and infrequent subscribers to aar, to explore on their >: own as they see fit, but to the law enforcement agencies who now monitor >: usenet as well. > >Who, I am sure, are laughing hysterically at all of this. Please >continue to pee on your chances of ever doing this professionally >at every opportunity. > >: No strict personal agenda; only a professional one. No personal attacks. >: Just observations of behavior. > >Goodness Brent, do you really think we need you to observe peoples >behavior for us? Most of us who have been around the Net since the >clever little protocols were designed by the engineers, and who can >even remember events like "The Great Renaming", and the origins of >Kibo, are fairly astute judges of human behavior. We have seen >all sides of every imaginable issue argued from every conceivable >perspective, and we know the names of all the major players and >where they stand on each one. > >: -- >: Brent E. Turvey, MSc Forensic Science >: bturvey(a)connix.com >: http://www.connix.com/~bturvey/profile.html > >Anyone want to join me in nominating Mr. Turvey for the coveted "KOTM" >degree? I think... > > Brent E. Turvey, MSc Forensic Science, KOTM Usenet > >has a very nice ring to it. He's definitely goofier than Drs. Grubor >and Vulis. I also suggest you visit his unintentionally funny writings >on autoerotic asphyxiation on the Web. Brent is a man of many talents. :) > >-- > Mike Duvos $ PGP 2.6 Public Key available $ > mpd(a)netcom.com $ via Finger. $ > Is Brent as goofy as the ASALA terrorist (about to be fired by Earthweb for net-abuse), or even goofier? --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

3 3