December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Mr. throw@yourself.up
by jamie＠comet.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- He's some little turd at telnor.net. Probably rex(a)telnor.net Throw ftp://ftp.telnor.net/pub/firewall/downloaders.HTM into your favorite browser. The ftp server is world writable too. Fuckin' IRC scum. Oh yeah. Merry Christmas. jamie - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ jamie(a)comet.net | Comet.Net | Send empty message | Charlottesville, Va. | to pgpkey(a)comet.net | (804)295-2407 | for pgp public key. | http://www.comet.net | "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators" -P.J. O'Rourke. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMrkpX/MDfTuunU79AQEeogf+Lq4bmq3klEUXHyMAozReqBJgX55AshYs SKh+dZUSEd4kXGM2zDbApLyO8htzxVlpMfcql8ra//9S55OqIOrI3EaVlm3MJ1jt q0oBLM93SNPUmExVAiR38LEybPi7m8qWpfPj6xQUrt20Jlh3FG1aZJJW0JxW1vHP QwsZCbp2QKifCYA+ej404HdsVjfPoC/IyTcZ/QTi5BOcXMLRbjkfLb3XuVjPfuiE 5wrqqVnXmQpGOp9Pd1yUHvGUYcxKIRBqx23IwaxcIpfONtWsDfTlZixLGZNVOjc8 SJmbOukE+KeOSJRElwrJFuWVTB+qtTyif9qksopmuj6vsCQpbrQ94g== =aDfS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

TIS_sue
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

12-16-96: "TIS' Key Recovery Technology First To Enable General Purpose Export For Very Strong Encryption" In a development that may signal the beginning of the end of the long standing encryption export control controversy, TIS today announced that products using very strong cryptography with its RecoverKey technology have been approved for general purpose export control under new export regulations. "Encryption - BSA tries new lobbying tack" BSA intends to abandon its efforts to negotiate with the Clinton administration on encryption export rules and will instead lobby Congress for new legislation. The best hope lies with Rep. Bob Goodlatte who plans to reintroduce a House bill proposing the relaxation of controls at the next session next month. "U.S. Emissary on Cryptography to Keynote RSA Data Security Conference" "The RSA Conference is an opportunity for me to provide some insights on my mission which includes fostering a consensus on the development of an international key management infrastructure," said Ambassador Aaron. "Pretty Darn Private" PGP last week unveiled PGP Cookie Cutter, a browser plug-in that lets users selectively block Web "cookies." "Smart card-PC standard proposed" The eight documents of the joint specifications address three major areas: They provide an interface to card readers; establish a common programming interface and control mechanism; and maintain compatibility with existing devices, leveraging the ISO structure that has been set in place over the past decade. Information is available on the Web at www.smartcardsys.com. "Web Service Provider Attacked" A SYN-flood attack against WebCom knocked out more than 3,000 Web sites for 40 hours this weekend during the busiest shopping season of the year. ----- TIS_sue (19 kb)

5 6

Proof that "cypher punks" have complete degenerated...
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

No one even commented on the latest Dr. Dobbs issue. --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

4 5

[books for children's hospitals
by Wes Brown 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

excellent idea ! Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 15:27:19 -0800 (PST) >From: Dave Kinchlea <security(a)kinch.ark.com> >To: all(a)ami.lhsc.on.ca, everyone(a)heartlab.rri.uwo.ca, family(a)kinch.ark.com, > friends(a)kinch.ark.com >Subject: [OFF-TOPIC] RE: (Fwd) Books for Children's Hospitals (fwd) > >I have verified myself that this is true, seems worth taking the time. >While I fully expect to get some junk mail because of sending off a >message, seems a small price to pay to provide a book to a child. > >cheers, kinch > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Thu, 12 Dec 1996 10:56:49 -0800 >From: "James A. Tunnicliffe" <Tunny(a)inference.com> >To: "'cypherpunks(a)toad.com'" <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>, > "'pjb(a)ny.ubs.com'" <pjb(a)ny.ubs.com> >Subject: [OFF-TOPIC] RE: (Fwd) Books for Children's Hospitals > >>Paul writes: >>i know that this is WAY off topic, and that we never post off-topic mail >>here, >>but, this seems worthwhile, so please excuse, (maybe flames for off-topic >>posts >>will count ) >> >>cheers, >> -paul >>>"The Houghton-Mifflin publishing co. is giving books to children's >>>hospitals; how many books they give depends on how many emails they >>>receive from people around the world. for every 25 emails they receive, >>>they give one book--it seems like a great way to help a good cause. >>> >>>All that you have to do is email share(a)hmco.com. >>> >>>I hope that you can spare the seconds...and let your friends know. So far >>>they only have 3,401 messages...last year they reached 23,000. >>> >>>This seems like an easy and simple thing to do -- please take the time!" > >My "urban legend detector" pegged when I saw this, but it turns out >to be on the level. See http://www.hmco.com/hmco/trade/hmi/polar/ >for more info. > >Tunny >====================================================================== > James A. Tunnicliffe | WWWeb: http://www.inference.com/~tunny > Inference Corporation | PGP Fingerprint: CA 23 E2 F3 AC 2D 0C 77 > tunny(a)Inference.com | 36 07 D9 33 3D 32 53 9C >====================================================================== > >

4 3

Re: Inflation-index bonds and private e-currency
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rfiero(a)pophost.com" "Richard Fiero" 1-OCT-1996 04:50:07.73 >E. Allen Smith wrote: >> One of the attractions of privately-produced currencies is as a >> hedge against inflation; this development may be a competitor to this >> idea. On the other hand, this setup does have an unavailability in _time_ >> of the money (more so than other, equal-security bonds of the same duration), >> which may offset its greater spendability. >I don't get it. Why is this bond not saleable like any other? What >"privately-produced currencies" are a hedge against inflation? If >this bond is saleable like any other, why is the money unavailable? >What means "greater spendability?" Is this assumed to be yet another >government plot because it competes with other offerings and reduces >the cost of borrowing? The bond in question is salable... but its value is only guaranteed (to the extent that any government promise is guaranteed) when it comes due. Money supplies can be continuously adjusted by a private issue to keep a privately-produced currency's value stable. Privately-produced currencies, with a few (unfortunately minor) exceptions, are currently more of a free market economist idea than a reality; current governments are quite close on keeping their monetary powers (witness the protests in Europe against going the opposite way, to a common currency; also witness governmental attempts at keeping the free market from determining exchange rates). It is possible that private digital currencies will solve this problem, since they are much cheaper to produce than paper money is to print and can be traded privately much easier. There are likely to still be some legal problems with them, although A. selecting the proper country to base an issuer out of and B. not actually making avaliable through the issuer the reverse transaction - privately produced money to governmental money - only transactions for governmental money to privately produced money and privately produced money for services and/or goods may do the trick. Greater spendability refers to that when this bond is converted to government-backed dollars, most businesses will currently accept such dollars. This is unlikely to be the case for the first few years for a private currency, although an increased ease of exchange of a digital (as opposed to governmental paper) currency may make up for this difficulty. I doubt that most of the governmental types involved in making this decision know about privately produced currencies... but some may, and may have encouraged central bankers et al (and those who oppose Greenspan for his (quite admirable) opposition to inflation, like numerous politicians) to encourage this idea; assuming complete innocence of a particular motive on the part of any large organization is generally about as ignorant (and often stupid) as assuming complete guilt. Moreover, government competition with the private sector is rarely beneficial; in this particular area, I'd point out that it isn't reducing the cost of borrowing, it's increasing it - when lenders can lend to the government, they're _not_ lending to private businesses and others who can make far better use of the money. This factor, in a large part, is why most economists are in favor of a reduction in the government deficit. -Allen P.S. Sorry about the lateness of this reply, but I'm just getting around to some of my earlier mail.

5 9

Encryption ?
by SHARK 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am a Mathematic student at Bosphorus University in Turkey. I am interested in both computer applications and mathematical base of encryption.Where can I find this kind of staff on internet. Is it necessary to have high level of mathematical background in order to deal with encryption?? By the way Is there any member of this list from Turkey?

4 3

Your password for BARRON'S Online
by webmaster＠Online.Barrons.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thank you for registering with BARRON'S Online! THE USER NAME YOU HAVE CHOSEN IS cypherpunks THE PASSWORD YOU HAVE CHOSEN IS cypherpunks Please remember that your user name and password are case-sensitive (i.e. Bsmith is different than bsmith) and you should enter them as shown above. Your user name is required in its exact form each time you want to use registered areas on our site (including the exact upper/lowercase combination). The same restriction applies to your password. Your user name and password will allow you to access all of the features of BARRON'S Online. The rest of this message contains information about using your password and user name on BARRON'S Online. You may find it helpful to save this message for future reference. WHAT HAPPENS NOW? 1. Return to BARRON'S Online (www.barrons.com) You can use your password and user name to log in to any part of the site that requires registration (such as the Table of Contents, this week's stories, Dossiers and Market Day, and so on). The first time you go to one of these parts of BARRON'S Online, you will be prompted to enter your user name and password. 2. If you ever forget your password, or need any registration-related information, just click on the REGISTER button from the BARRON'S Online gateway page to find the help you need. Welcome to BARRON'S Online... we look forward to seeing you again and again! BARRON'S Online Customer Service barrons-support(a)www.barrons.com

3 2

EFF: Bernstein court declares crypto restrictions unconstitutional
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

COURT DECLARES CRYPTO RESTRICTIONS UNCONSTITUTIONAL Free Speech Trumps Clinton Wiretap Plan December 18, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Attorney 301/375-8856, ssteele(a)eff.org John Gilmore, Founding Board Member 415/221-6524, gnu(a)toad.com Cindy Cohn, McGlashan & Sarrail 415/341-2585, cindy(a)mcglashan.com San Francisco - On Monday, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel struck down Cold War export restrictions on the privacy technology called cryptography. Her decision knocks out a major part of the Clinton Administration's effort to force companies to build "wiretap-ready" computers, set-top boxes, telephones, and consumer electronics. The decision is a victory for free speech, academic freedom, and the prevention of crime. American scientists and engineers will now be free to collaborate with their peers in the United States and in other countries. This will enable them to build a new generation of tools for protecting the privacy and security of communications. The Clinton Administration has been using the export restrictions to goad companies into building wiretap-ready "key recovery" technology. In a November Executive Order, President Clinton offered limited administrative exemptions from these restrictions to companies which agree to undermine the privacy of their customers. Federal District Judge Patel's ruling knocks both the carrot and the stick out of Clinton's hand, because the restrictions were unconstitutional in the first place. The Cold War law and regulations at issue in the case prevented American researchers and companies from exporting cryptographic software and hardware. Export is normally thought of as the physical carrying of an object across a national border. However, the regulations define "export" to include simple publication in the U.S., as well as discussions with foreigners inside the U.S. They also define "software" to include printed English-language descriptions and diagrams, as well as the traditional machine-readable object code and human-readable source code. The secretive National Security Agency has built up an arcane web of complex and confusing laws, regulations, standards, and secret interpretations for years. These are used to force, persuade, or confuse individuals, companies, and government departments into making it easy for NSA to wiretap and decode all kinds of communications. Their tendrils reach deep into the White House, into numerous Federal agencies, and into the Congressional Intelligence Committees. In recent years this web is unraveling in the face of increasing visibility, vocal public disagreement with the spy agency's goals, commercial and political pressure, and judicial scrutiny. Civil libertarians have long argued that encryption should be widely deployed on the Internet and throughout society to protect privacy, prove the authenticity of transactions, and improve computer security. Industry has argued that the restrictions hobble them in building secure products, both for U.S. and worldwide use, risking America's current dominant position in computer technology. Government officials in the FBI and NSA argue that the technology is too dangerous to permit citizens to use it, because it provides privacy to criminals as well as ordinary citizens. "We're pleased that Judge Patel understands that our national security requires protecting our basic rights of free speech and privacy," said John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which backed the suit. "There's no sense in `burning the Constitution in order to save it'. The secretive bureaucrats who have restricted these rights for decades in the name of national security must come to a larger understanding of how to support and preserve our democracy." Reactions to the decision "This is a positive sign in the crypto wars -- the first rational statement concerning crypto policy to come out of any part of the government," said Jim Bidzos, President of RSA Data Security, one of the companies most affected by crypto policy. "It's nice to see that the executive branch does not get to decide whether we have the right of free speech," said Philip Zimmermann, Chairman of PGP, Inc. "It shows that my own common sense interpretation of the constitution was correct five years ago when I thought it was safe to publish my own software, PGP. If only US Customs had seen it that way." Mr. Zimmermann is a civil libertarian who was investigated by the government under these laws when he wrote and gave away a program for protecting the privacy of e-mail. His "Pretty Good Privacy" program is used by human rights activists worldwide to protect their workers and informants from torture and murder by their own countries' secret police. "Judge Patel's decision furthers our efforts to enable secure electronic commerce," said Asim Abdullah, executive director of CommerceNet. Jerry Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a Washington-based Internet advocacy group, hailed the victory. "The Bernstein ruling illustrates that the Administration continues to embrace an encryption policy that is not only unwise, but also unconstitutional. We congratulate Dan Bernstein, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and all of the supporters who made this victory for free speech and privacy on the Internet possible." "The ability to publish is required in any vibrant academic discipline," This ruling re-affirming our obvious academic right will help American researchers publish without worrying," said Bruce Schneier, author of the popular textbook _Applied Cryptography_, and a director of the International Association for Cryptologic Research, a professional organization of cryptographers. Kevin McCurley, President of the International Association for Cryptologic Research, said, "Basic research to further the understanding of fundamental notions in information should be welcomed by our society. The expression of such work is closely related to one of the fundamental values of our society, namely freedom of speech." Effect of the decision Judge Patel's decision today only legally applies to Prof. Bernstein. Other people and companies are still technically required to follow the export restrictions when speaking or publishing about cryptography, or when speaking or publishing cryptographic source code. However, the decision sends a strong signal that if the government tried to enforce these rules against other people, the courts are likely to strike them down again. Judge Patel has specifically not decided whether the export controls on object code (the executable form of computer programs which source code is automatically translated into) are constitutional. Existing export controls will continue to apply to runnable software products, such as Netscape's broswer, until another court case challenges that part of the restrictions. Background on the case The plaintiff in the case, Daniel J. Bernstein, Research Assistant Professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, developed an "encryption algorithm" (a recipe or set of instructions) that he wanted to publish in printed journals as well as on the Internet. Bernstein sued the government, claiming that the government's requirements that he register as an arms dealer and seek government permission before publication was a violation of his First Amendment right of free speech. This is required by the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. In the first phase of this litigation, the government argued that since Bernstein's ideas were expressed, in part, in computer language (source code), they were not protected by the First Amendment. On April 15, 1996, Judge Patel rejected that argument and held for the first time that computer source code is protected speech for purposes of the First Amendment. Details of Monday's Decision Judge Patel ruled that the Arms Export Control Act is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech, because it requires Bernstein to submit his ideas about cryptography to the government for review, to register as an arms dealer, and to apply for and obtain from the government a license to publish his ideas. Using the Pentagon Papers case as precedent, she ruled that the government's "interest of national security alone does not justify a prior restraint." Under the Constitution, he is now free to publish his ideas without asking the government's permission first. Judge Patel also held that the government's required licensing procedure fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards. When the Government acts legally to suppress protected speech, it must reduce the chance of illegal censorship by the bureacrats involved. Her decision states, "Because the ITAR licensing scheme fails to provide for a time limit on the licensing decision, for prompt judicial review and for a duty on the part of the ODTC to go to court and defend a denial of a license, the ITAR licensing scheme as applied to Category XIII(b) acts as an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First Amendment." She also ruled that the export controls restrict speech based on the content of the speech, not for any other reason. "Category XIII(b) is directed very specifically at applied scientific research and speech on the topic of encryption." The Government had argued that it restricts the speech because of its function, not its content. The judge also found that the ITAR is vague, because it does not adequately define how information that is available to the public "through fundamental research in science and engineering" is exempt from the export restrictions. "This subsection ... does not give people ... a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited." The failure to precisely define what objects and actions are being regulated creates confusion and a chilling effect. Bernstein has been unable to publish his encryption algorithm for over three years. Many other cryptographers and ordinary programmers have also been restrained from publishing because of the vagueness of the ITAR. Brian Behlendorf, a maintainer of the popular public domain "Apache" web server program, stated, "No cryptographic source code was ever distributed by the Apache project. Despite this, the Apache server code was deemed by the NSA to violate the ITAR." Judge Patel also adopted a narrower definition of the term "defense service" in order to save it from unconstitutional vagueness. The immediate effect of this decision is that Bernstein now is free to teach his January 13th cryptography class in his usual way. He can post his class materials on the Internet, and discuss the upcoming class's materials with other professors, without being held in violation of the ITAR. "I'm very pleased," Bernstein said. "Now I won't have to tell my students to burn their notebooks." ABOUT THE ATTORNEYS Lead counsel on the case is Cindy Cohn of the San Mateo law firm of McGlashan & Sarrail, who is offering her services pro bono. Major additional pro bono legal assistance is being provided by Lee Tien of Berkeley; M. Edward Ross of the San Francisco law firm of Steefel, Levitt & Weiss; James Wheaton and Elizabeth Pritzker of the First Amendment Project in Oakland; and Robert Corn-Revere of the Washington, DC, law firm of Hogan & Hartson. ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is a nonprofit civil liberties organization working in the public interest to protect privacy, free expression, and access to online resources and information. EFF is a primary sponsor of the Bernstein case. EFF helped to find Bernstein pro bono counsel, is a member of the Bernstein legal team, and helped collect members of the academic community and computer industry to support this case. Full text of the lawsuit and other paperwork filed in the case is available from EFF's online archives at http://www.eff.org/pub/EFF/Policy/Crypto/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ The full text of Monday's decision will be posted there as soon as we scan it in.

3 4

RE: Untraceable Payments, Extortion, and Other Bad Things
by blanc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Vlad the Conqueror anyone heard of "memes"? cryptoanarchy is a virus of weak minds without any defense mechanisms. the cpunk list is the principal vector.. ..................................................... So, Nuri-logical, are you one of those NSA tentacles on the list, discouraging people from following certain ideas - like Tim's, for example? <g> Are you feeling a bit in-Timmy-dated by the possibility of a crypto reign of terror; do you feel a bit like you're part of that stuff floating at the top about to be skimmed off? What do you think would be a good antidote for this cryptoanarchy virus? How do you imagine that it might be introduced into the Brave New World of anarchocapitalism; how could it effectively counter the growth of libertarian ideals, which you despise? Tim sort of evaded my question by asserting that the methods of which he spoke were implicit in his writings. I hope you don't claim the same, but are more blatant and explicit about your ideas to the contrary (though typically you are blatant, although not necessarily explicit). .. Blanc

1 0

Hooked on Ebonics
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now that the new Afrocentric Ebonic language is officially recognized, we have a lot of work to do. Having textbooks published in English and Hip Hop is going to be daunting. New educational tapes, "Hooked on Ebonics" will have to be produced. Answers to test questions will have to be analyzed and converted, and an entire new dictionary will need to be established. You know what I'm sayin'? In some ways life will get much simpler. No longer will we be burdened with the cumbersome task of searching our minds for the proper adjective, pronoun, or participle. An expletive invoking another's mother will be the only adjective, pronoun, or metaphor in the new Ebonics dictionary. Bernard Shaw and Alan Keyes could get rid of that bothersome eloquence and perfect diction and rap it back Black, lay it on me bro. I'm curious about the "N word." Will that be allowed? I do hear it a lot in movies centered around life in the ethnic neighborhoods of L.A. or Oakland. The reason I ask is because where I work you'll be severely fired if you toss out the "N word." We'll need to have clarification. It would be kind of strange to have an official language that only one ethnic group is allowed to use. Maybe if we could get Texaconics declared an official language of the corporate elite we could give those guys at Texaco their jobs back. Ross Perot could say, "You people" with impunity. As a matter of fact we can have an official language for however you want to talk. Bigotonics, Stupidonics, Stoneronics, Skatersonics, Preppyonics and last but not least, I can't get a decent job anywhere in the world because I was educated in the Oakland School Districtonics.

1 0