December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

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

17 Dec '03

From: Ross Wright Yes, part of that "higher standard" is to keep your fucking mouth shut about that piece in your sholder holster. Those that brag that they are packing and won't hesitate to use it are usually those that freeze under fire or snap at the workplace. ............................................................. Discussing self-defense equipment to carry... Student: "How about earplugs?" Instructor: "We've thought about that as an intimidation tool. Some guy is hassling you on the street and you start putting your ear plugs in. The guy says, 'What are you doing?' You say, 'It looks like I'm going to be doing some shooting here pretty soon and I don't want to hurt my ears.'" -Greg Hamilton- Self Defense Instructor Nov. 19, 1995 In cyberspace, elimination is accomplished with "delete" keys and "kill files", right? (L.Detweiler used to complain about how many cyberdeaths he had experienced.) Outta sight, outta mind... .. Blanc

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 18:03, Blanc Weber wrote: > You have to understand - Tim is from California. > If you choose to carry, you will be held to a higher standard of > behavior > than those that don't. Yes, part of that "higher standard" is to keep your fucking mouth shut about that piece in your sholder holster. Those that brag that they are packing and won't hesitate to use it are usually those that freeze under fire or snap at the workplace. A true shooter shut's the fuck up and if needs be, let's the weapon do the talking when the time is right. That mutually assured destruction shit only works for governments. In this day and age you better think EVERYONE'S packing, and if you shoot your mouth off about your little pea shooter you just make yourself a target for the first shot fired. Ross =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

3 2

Re: what is a law if it cant be enforced?
by Ryan Russell/SYBASE 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As long as it can be selectivley enforced, that's all they need. Ryan ---------- Previous Message ---------- To: cypherpunks cc: From: mrwilhe @ odin.cmp.ilstu.edu @ smtp Date: 12/30/96 07:43:01 PM Subject: what is a law if it cant be enforced? 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

Happy New Year
by secure＠access.usa.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friend, If you are interested in increasing your income by using your personal contacts, Please Consider this... Make up to $400.00 per deal by giving away security systems Secure America Highlights 1. It only cost $45 to become a distributor and for that you receive a black glove leather brief case with everything you need to get started; forms, full color brochures, and a video tape telling you about the company, its product and marketing plan. 2. The company offers 100% financing to those buying the product- they have four institutions and can finance most everyone. If your prospective customer gets turned down, then with a small down payment, the company will finance them - IN OTHER WORDS, - ALMOST NO TURN DOWNS! Each source, including the "company carried' contracts, will be reported to TRW; thus helping people, who have bad or no credit, gain the good credit they deserve. 3. The customer receives the system for FREE when they agree to a $29.95 per month-four year monitoring agreement, which is standard cost for a 2-way voice monitoring. They need to agree to either a debit from their checking account or credit card each month. 4. You as the distributor receive a commission of up to $400 - once the buyer is approved and financed. The company pays commission weekly. The commission is paid even before the buyer makes their first payment. And this is important. There are never any charge backs! 5. You, as the distributor can sign up others distributors and receive bonuses of $120 to $320 per sale from distributors under you. The marketing plan offers a very attractive bonus plan. By signing up one new distributor, who does the same within a month, and this pattern continues with each new person only bringing one new distributor, there would be more than 4,000 distributors in your organization at the end of a year. Keep in mind that you only brought in one person each month. If each person in your organization sold only one system per month, your income would be more than $800,000 the first year! What if your organization only did 1/3 of that? Would you be excited? 6. You can set up businesses who can give these away as premiums to their customers, Carpet dealers, appliance dealers, auto dealers, real estate offices, home improvement companies, just to name a few, can give their customers a certificate for a free system upon activation of a four year monitoring contract. The certificate will have your name on it and all they have to do is contact you for the system. You get them approved and get the commission - It's that simple! If you want, you can pay the business a referral fee of say $25, $50, or $100 or even better yet sign them up as a distributor and get continuing overrides and bonuses on them. 7. No Installation worries on your part. The system is wireless, needs no professional installer and comes with an installation video that walks the customer through the installation process. Installation will take about 20-30 minutes. 8. You can market to both home owners and renters - in fact, nobody is going after the rental market at this time. Think about it, do renters want any less protection than homeowners? What a gold mine! When someone moves, they take their security system with them and set it up, with our nationwide monitoring company, at their new location (keep in mind that the system is hooked up to the customers' regular phone line). 9. No Inventory. You do not have to buy anything or make a huge investments in products just to store them in your garage. Once you sign someone up for a system, you turn the paperwork into the company, they process the application (usually within 48 hours), and ship the system to the customer - no deliver or installation hassles for you! 10. No Accounting. The company keeps track of everything for you and give you a computer printout of your sales and organizational activity each month. 11. The Need. September 17, 1996 U.S. Justice Department statistics show that last year burglaries, theft, and theft of motor vehicles were 288 per 1,000 households and yet only 15% of the homes in America have security systems. We can offer monitored protection and peace of mind for only $1 a day and save 10-20% on home insurance premiums. 12. The Equipment. TWO-WAY VOICE systems let the monitoring company listen throughout the home (after alarm activation) for burglaries, medical, or emergency needs, or fire department help. In fact more and more cities are starting to charge non two-way system owners for false alarms. 13. The Company. Secure America has spent more than two years in developing this state of the art equipment system, marketing plan, and available $100 million in financing. This is a one of a king company - no inventory to stock - no huge investments - no money up from the buyer - weekly payment of sales bonuses - and there is NO Competition for this type of system at this price. 14. The Opportunity. What a great feeling! We get to Give Away a system that can do so much for family safety and peace of mind. And whether you would like to make an extra $300 a month or have visions of grandeur, this program can satisfy your needs. The financial bottom line... There will be many millionaires made through Secure America in the next few years. ________________________________________________ Product Package Information: 3000M Gardsman Alarm System - Monitoring Fee $24.95/Month Main Unit(3000M) X1 Motion Sensors X2 Magnetic Sensors X2 Keychain Remote controls X1 Strobe light Siren X1 Window Decals X2 Commission-$200 5000M Gardsman Alarm System - Monitoring Fee $29.95/Month Main Unit(5000M) X1 Motion Sensors X2 Magnetic Sensors X2 Keychain Remote controls X2 Strobe light Siren X1 Window Decals X4 Lawn Sign X1 Commission-$300 For an application, Please Email me your fax number or Mailing address and phone number. Look forward to hearing from you or call our Fax on Demand 1 703-736-1600 Doc#280

2 1

Professor Asks for Constitutional Review of New Encryption Regs
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Thanks to all the local c'punks for your support of this court case! If we do end up asking for a temporary restraining order, there'll probably be another hearing soon. I'll give you as much notice as I have. --gnu] PROFESSOR ASKS FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW OF NEW ENCRYPTION REGS "Shell Game" Attempts to Continue Unconstitutional Rules December 30, 1996 Electronic Frontier Foundation Contacts: Shari Steele, Staff Attorney +1 301 375 8856, ssteele(a)eff.org John Gilmore, Founding Board Member +1 415 221 6524, gnu(a)toad.com Cindy Cohn, McGlashan & Sarrail +1 415 341 2585, cindy(a)mcglashan.com San Francisco - Laywers for Professor Dan Bernstein today asked the Government to delay enforcement of new encryption restrictions until they can be reviewed by a court for Constitutionality. The new regulations contain the same features struck down earlier this month by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel. "The government apparently decided to ignore Judge Patel's findings.", said Cindy Cohn, lead attorney in the case. "Instead of listening to Judge Patel's analysis and attempting to fix the regulations, they simply issued new ones with the same problems. We are giving them a a chance to fix this before we bring the issue up in court." President Clinton ordered on November 15 that the regulations be moved from the State Department to the Commerce Department. Judge Patel's decision of December 6 (released December 16th) struck down the State Department regulations as a "paradigm of standardless discretion" that required Americans to get licenses from the government to publish information and software about encryption. Over Christmas, the Clinton Administration published its new Commerce Department regulations, containing all the same problems, and put them into immediate effect today. The new regulations once again put Professor Bernstein at risk of prosecution for teaching a class on encryption and publishing his class materials on the Internet. His class begins on January 13 at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Professor Bernstein's letter of today proposes that the Government agree to delay enforcement of the new regulations while Judge Patel reviews them for Constitutionality. Failing that, Professor Bernstein will ask the court for a temporary restraining order to block their enforcement. "The government is forcing us to go back to Judge Patel again to have the new regulations declared facially unconstitutional." said Ms. Cohn. "This time we believe that a nationwide injunction against their enforcement is merited." "The new encryption rules are a pointless shell game," said John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which backed the suit. "Industry and Congress had asked that the draconian State Department regulations be eliminated in favor of existing, reasonable, Commerce Department regulations. Judge Patel invalidated the State Department regulations because they were draconian. Rather than address the concerns of either, President Clinton moved the draconian regulations into the Commerce Department -- and made them tougher in the process. It's his political decision whether to ignore and anger industry leaders, but he can't ignore a federal district court judge." 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 and communications 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. 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 was required by the Arms Export Control Act and its implementing regulations, the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. The new regulations have the same effect, using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the Export Administration Regulations, and a "state of national emergency" that President Clinton declared in 1994 and has re-declared annually. 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. On December 6, Judge Patel ruled that the Arms Export Control Act is a prior restraint on speech, because it requires Bernstein 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." 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 -- in this case, the State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls (ODTC). 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 new regulations continue to insist that the Government is regulating 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." Judge Patel also adopted a narrower definition of the term "defense article" in order to save it from unconstitutional vagueness. 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, Julia Kogan, and Jeremy Miller 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/Privacy/ITAR_export/Bernstein_case/ The full text of today's letter from Professor Bernstein to the Government, and proposed stipulation, are at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/ Bernstein_case/Legal/961230.letter http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/ Bernstein_case/Legal/961230_proposed.stipulation The new Commerce Department Export Administration Regulations are available at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Privacy/ITAR_export/961230_commerce.regs

1 0

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

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 18:16, jim bell wrote: > 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 Be that as it may, it is still no call for threats of gunplay! That is NOT funny. I take such things very seriously. =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

4 3

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

17 Dec '03

On or About 30 Dec 96 at 20:29, Graham-John Bullers wrote: > You mean we cannot choose to be RACIST BIGOTS shame on you. Sure you can, I got no problem with open disscussions of views. Any views! But a private threat of gunplay, that you have no right to! > > http://www.free > net.edmonton.ab.ca/~real/index.html > > : > real(a)freenet.edmonton.ab.c > a > Graham-John Bullers email > : > ab756(a)freenet.toronto.on.c > a > > Of course, I'd treat a "slapping" as an assault. I'd love to put a > > clip of hollowpoints through your chest. > > > > Your place or mine? > > > > ---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, > > digital =-=-=-=-=-=- Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

2 1

[[[ NEW ! Computer Based Business. ]]]
by 93865＠net.122 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DO NOT PRESS REPLY. Send all inquiries, and remove request to http://business.atcon.com/parker/PSM/Tony/tonypsm.htm

2 1

Re: "Structuring" of Communications a Felony?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:35 PM 12/29/96 -0800, Steve Schear wrote: >>I predict that we will see within two years a law making it illegal to >>"structure communications" with the intent to avoid traceability, >>accountability, etc. >> >>This would be along the lines of the laws making it illegal to "structure" >>financial transactions with the (apparent) intent to avoid or evade certain >>laws about reporting of income, reporting of transactions, etc. >> >>How long before the U.S. Code declares "attempting to obscure or hide the >>origin of a communication" to be a felony? That would rule out orninary >>mail without return adresses, but I think there are ample signs we're >>already moving toward this situation (packages that could be bombs >>putatively require ID, talk of the Postal Service handling the citizen-unit >>authentication/signature system, etc.). >>--Tim May > >Tim, I think that this is highly unlikely. The SC has ruled repeatedly >that anonymous speech is a foundation of American politics (e.g., the >Federalist Papers). >-- Steve When Senator Leahy's first crypto bill was proposed early this year, at first glance it appeared to help our cause. Many people around here at least gave it lukewarm support. However, it contained a section making (quote approximate) "use of encryption to thwart an investigation" a crime. I pointed out, quite loudly, that any encrypting anonymous remailer could be considered practically automatically guilty of this. In fact, the feds could simply start a sham "investigation," perhaps assisted by a phony message sent by a confederate through the remailer, and then declare that their investigation had been "thwarted." Whether such an interpretation would fly was, obviously, a question, but by the time the SC had issued its ruling the remailer's hardware would have been siezed collecting dust in some Fed warehouse for 2-3 years. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Shell Game News
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Online reports on the new crypto regs. MSNBC features Bernstein's challenge, with multiple sidebars. http://www.msnbc.com/news/49260.asp http://usatoday.com/news/washdc/ncs20.htm (AP brief)

1 0