December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

uae_1.html
by Lynx_User＠linux.nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters New Media [ Yahoo | Write Us | Search | Info ] [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: UK Bill To Fight Millennium Computer Bug Moves On Next Story: Intel to Europe: Get Online Or Fall Behind _________________________________________________________________ Monday January 27 9:50 AM EST UAE Launches Service To Censor Internet DUBAI - The United Arab Emirates's monopoly Internet provider launched a service Saturday to censor sites in cyberspace that breached local moral values and traditions. Officials from state telecommunications company Etisalat said the new Proxy Service would be compulsory for the UAE's 9,669 subscribers, who will have to configure their web browsers that navigate the net by February 2. "The service was launched today as part of our efforts to improve the Internet service to our subscribers after lengthy study and research," said one official at Etisalat. "We were working on it before some official statements were made on the need to control access to some sites on the service," he told Reuters. The move follows repeated calls to regulate access to the Internet in the conservative Gulf region, where most women are veiled, magazine pictures revealing cleavage or bare legs are blacked out and questioning the existence of god can be punishable by death. Some are worried about the spread of pornography as well as religious and political material through the worldwide network of interlinked computers. Last year, Dubai Police chief Major General Dhahi Khalfan Tamim created a rare public row in the UAE saying the information ministry and the police, rather that Etisalat, should be authorized to issue Internet licenses as it was their job to monitor data coming into the UAE and maintain security. Telecommunications experts say the Proxy Service will not be "fully water-tight," but would help block access to known and unwanted sites -- a list of which could be constantly updated. The proxy server will be pre-fed with Internet addresses where access is blocked off, industry sources said. But the server will be unable to block access if addresses of prohibited sites are changed, as frequently happens. Etisalat says it will disconnect any customer who abused its Internet services and violated "order and clear laws." "Singapore has succeeded to a great extent in its drive to control harm done by the Internet," said another Etisalat official. "Why cannot we?" Singapore government measures to regulate political and religious content on the Internet and keep it free of pornography became effective in July last year. They require all Internet service operators and local content providers to be registered with the Singapore Broadcasting Authority. Copyright, Reuters Ltd. All rights reserved _________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ___________ Help _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: UK Bill To Fight Millennium Computer Bug Moves On Next Story: Intel to Europe: Get Online Or Fall Behind _________________________________________________________________ [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited Questions or Comments

1 0

Re: Libel/slander & crypto relevancy
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 PM 2/27/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >I predict that within the next five years these >slander/libel laws will be used by some organization to prosecute defamation >of their Internet presence (eg web page graffitti). Within 10 years this >area will be one of the hotest areas of the new communications law. Civil actions against people doing "graffiti" are only interesting where the defendant has assets worth suing for. This economic dimension substantially limits the number of suits which will be brought. Corporate plaintiffs, if they chose to bring suit, would in many cases prefer to sue in federal court. (Federal juries tend to be more conservative and hence pro-corporate; they're also more likely to be friendly to an out-of-town corporation suing a local individual). To sue in federal court, the plaintiff needs to find a federal question or diversity jurisdiction. Other causes of action (like copyright infringement, trademark dilution, or false designation of origin) would provide a federal question and hence federal jurisdiction. Criminal prosecutions for defamation (in the case of "graffiti") are still unlikely - a much more straightforward charge would be unauthorized access to a computer or some flavor of fraud, depending on the facts. Confusion aids defendants, so I predict prosecutors will avoid defamation law (and its tar pits of actual malice and the defense of truth) when they are able to do so and still have a reasonable chance of conviction. >If they don't >understand the technology (eg forwarding private email to publicly >accessible lists by accident) how in the world are they going to understand >what is best, let along convince anyone else? There's a world of difference between understanding technology and screwing up once in awhile. Perhaps you've never screwed anything up (although your summary of US defamation law ought to count), but the rest of us do, from time to time. Were I involved in computer-related litigation, I'd choose an attorney who could talk to a jury over an attorney who was good with computers, hands down. Not even a question. And I'd pick an attorney who owned up to making mistakes sometimes over someone who imagined him or herself somehow superior to people who fuck up now and then. >It has been proposed by at least one party that a district attorney or other >public prosecutor would not act on such events. This is also naive. I was that "party", and I guess that in trying to be civil I was actually unclear. If you were a politically important person or organization, and if Toto's message had caused you real damage, and if Toto were reasonably available to prosecute, a prosecutor might get interested. But you're not important, Toto would be difficult to extradite, and you weren't harmed. So you picked a crappy example to make your point(s) with. Change the facts, and you'll get a different answer. Duh. >The >ramifications for their political opponents to use this 'insensitive and >clearly self-interested' refusal to act as a perfect example of how that >prosecutor is interested in their own political career and not in the >interest of the people they are charged with protecting as well as a good >demonstration of their technological ignorance. It would be very difficult >to get re-elected in such an environment. Yeah, I'll bet that your local prosecutor's failure to prosecute Toto is going to cost them dearly in the next election. You picked a hypothetical which did a poor job of illustrating the points you're making in this later message. Do you want to talk about whether or not Toto is criminally liable for making fun of you while making a point about ownership of networks and its relationship to freedom of speech, or do you want to talk about the more general case of liability for misattribution? If it's the latter, yes, there are some issues there, but I still think that defamation law is a poor way to address them. You seem to be having an "I've got a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. And all of this seems a bit contrived if the real crypto-relevant point is "use digital signatures to avoid misattribution". >All that I ask is that instead of jumping the gun and saying 'it ain't so' >you simply consider the ramifications from 'their' perspective. It truly is >amazing what one can learn by walking a mile in another mans shoes. For if >there is one truth to be learned it is that this discussion is not about how >it is, but rather how it will be and how it should be. Despite your closing, I haven't seen you write anything about "how it should be", beyond the idea that people should learn more about digital signatures. You've forwarded lots of information from other people's web pages about defamation liability in different jurisdictions, but no discussion about why the rules we've got now are good ones (or bad ones). Other commentators have suggested that defamation law is obsolete (Tim May) or should be reconsidered in light of a victim's ability (via the net) to reply to a defamer (Mike Godwin). Do you have a proposal along these lines? Your message suggests to me that you're very pro-plaintiff with respect to defamation (at least when you're the plaintiff), but you haven't explained why other people should adopt your perspective. You did suggest that juries are also likely to think it's in their best interests to find for plaintiffs (because they might find themselves in similar circumstances someday); but it's unclear to me why that reasoning wouldn't make them equally likely to side with defendants (because they might be wrongfully accused of doing something bad), or why your logic wouldn't apply to every case, not just defamation cases. And, for what it's worth, juries aren't supposed to consider "what is in our best interest" either as individuals nor as a community, nor is that a legitimate topic for argument to the jury with respect to questions about liability or guilt. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

1 0

Re: Rejection policy of the Cypherpunks mailing list
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dale Thorn wrote: > > Kevin L Prigge wrote: > > paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk said: > > > > "cypherpunks will make the networks safe for censorship" > > > "Idiots will make the networks require censorship" > > The line above this one says it all, doesn't it? If I judge you to > be "an idiot", then, if I also have the power to shut you up, I can > not only shut off your "noise" from me, but also prevent anyone else > from hearing you as well. That's the real beauty of censorship - > if I have the power, I can make you a non-person by preventing most > people from hearing you at all. Oh, lovely, isn't it? > Don't you like power, Dale? - Igor.

1 0

Trolling with Dale (a bite)
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 From: Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> Subject: Re: overview.htm (fwd) Dale Thorn hopelessly wrote: >Let's be realistic about how AIDS is acquired. Yes, Dale, let's >AIDS, OTOH, is likely to be a development from years of 1) Contact >with germs, chemicals, food additives, antibiotics other medical >treatments, sexual contact, etc. and 2) Immune-suppressing activities >such as lack of sleep and exercise, anxiety and stress, and so on. Sounds reasonable to me, especially contact with germs (Who says "germs?"), and sexual contact. Take it on the road, Dale. >It seems to me that "proof" of someone acquiring AIDS from one stab >with a contaminated needle is a very nebulous thing. As far as nurses >go, the contact I've had with many of them tells me they are also >(on average) drug users extraordinaire. Yes, nebulous! Extraordinaire (on average), certainly. At the risk of being offed by the moderator, I do believe that Dale is masturbating when he writes nonsense such as this. Perhaps "masterbating" as opposed to j.o. will pass muster. Dale makes an excellent case for having a moderated list right here. What do his nutball beyond-the-fringe remarks have to do with crypto, privacy, security? Cripes, in the old days even an _accurate_ off-list remark would open a blast furnace of condemnation, a la Jim B. If the list won't moderate itself to "guide" the Dale's, it DESERVES to be moderated. He's gotta be trolling to keep it hard. (Dangerous ground here!) Read "erect" for "keep it hard." I suggest even (even!) "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" would disavow this pseudo-scientific nonsense regardless of his stated feelings toward homosexuals which I do not share but, nevertheless, believe may be aired. Step up, Doc. P.S. Does tripe such as Dale's latest make the mod list?

2 1

Re: Fighting the cybercensor
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Phillip M. Hallam-Baker wrote: > Dale Thorn <dthorn(a)gte.net> wrote in article > > blanc wrote: > > > From: Dr.Dimitri Vulis This [below] is one of the most remarkable posts I've ever seen.... > > > However U.S.G. is able to say that people of Iraq or Lybia or Cuba > > > should not be permitted on the 'net. It also bombs Iraq and murders > > > their civilians in retaliation for something their governments > > > supposedly did. > > > The U.S.G. has many more resources than most of us to do these things, > > > including equipment, cooperative troops, money, and recognition from > > > other governments. If other nations disagree with the U.S.G. they > > > have the resources to discuss, bargain, negotiate, criticize, form > > > alliances, take their chances and retaliate, etc. > > I wish this were true, at least of nations which would be friendly > > to someone like me (white, Western, etc.). A bully on a school > > playground can always be knocked down, no matter how big or how > > vicious he is. Sadly, the U.S. bully cannot be knocked down. Bad > > enough you get nuclear, chemical, and/or biological stuff waved at > > you - if you get into a hot war like Desert Storm, your country is > > carpet-bombed with fleets of B-52's until it is thoroughly debilitated. > Actually the US is being remarkably ineffective in keeping > Cuba etc off the Net. If you don't believe me just try > the cuban home page. We had a Web server running in Sarajevo > during the siege back in '93. There is no way that the US govt. > can hope to control the Internet any more than it can control the > phone system. What is astonishing is that the Cuban authorities are > so keen to import a technology that breaks down their propaganda. This *is* amazing. The cuban govt. is *eager* (keen) to subvert their own propaganda. > The Cold War was not won by the arms race, it was won in > Eastern Europe which was never a major participant. The main > instrument that won it was West German TV which broadcast > pictures of supermarkets with full shelves into the homes > of East Germans every night. The viewers could see that it > was not mere propaganda and their relatives confirmed the > fact. As a result the East German guards on the Berlin wall > simply decided to leave their posts one night. That's it? The system collapsed because the guards left their posts? And no mutiny charges? Incredible. > The East Germans couldn't stop the TV signals either. When > Dresden started to become a ghost town because people wanted > to move to a town which could recieve the broadcasts the > East Germans ended up installing their own relay to keep > the locals happy. People left their own home towns just so they could watch TV? I know a lot of Americans who'd like to leave their towns to get away from TV, permanently.

1 0

Re: Best Computer School?
by Phillip M. Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Erp <erp(a)digiforest.com> wrote in article <5cjlg0$2ij(a)life.ai.mit.edu>... > > > > On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, SpyKing wrote: > > > This is a little off topic but maybe someone can help. I've got a teenage > > son (HS sophomore) who's interested in majoring in computer science in > > college with a particular interest in cryptography. He's leaning toward MIT. > > Any suggestions from list members as to colleges to investigate? > > Well in reference to MIT.. I hope he has a 4.0 in highschool, is an > allsport, has a 1600 on his SAT's, and a prefect on his ACT.. Just to > even think about going there.. Let alone to include how well he'll have > to do on his interviews etc.. Also you may wish to have him look again at > what he wants to be before he goes to some major college such as MIT, > because tuition at MIT costs approx 100,000$/4 years. Actually MIT does not take notice of SATs, GSATs and other IQ nonsense. Basically the tests are meaningless at the upper end of the scale which is where most MIT students would score and a low score does not in itself demonstate stupidity. If he can get in then its difficult to imagine a better school for crypto in the US. There is a finacial support program and admission is "needs blind" so that grants are matched according to need. > I know pretty well positive that > MIT is excellent, but when you get down to the basics MIT is more of an > engineering school than a science/philosophical school which Computer > Sciences falls under.. Another good school from what I've heard is UCLA.. > then again you can discredit anything I've said, because I'm still a > HighSchool senior myself and have been looking into Computer Criminology > for the last three years, and I'm positive it is what i want so *shrug*.. Actually there is a reasonable school for philosophy just up the road but its not so good for computer science (it did produce Bill Gates.) The AI lab does have a number of people who lean quite heavilly to the philosophy side. Phill

1 0

Sovreign Right of Lawful Access
by Somebody 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This morning at the RSA keynote, David Aaron, the US Crypto ambassador quoted the "Sovreign Right of Lawful Access" as something that goverments were determined to preserve.

3 2

.hlp creation
by Neil Rogers 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Howdi all, how are you, Can someone please help me, Can someone create a Windows 3.1 .hlp file fro me, when opened has a link to FILE MANAGER - U:\W31\winfile.exe Please, I have tried but can't do one, I would be really gratefull if someone could help! Thanks in advance, Neil ..............

1 0

Re: GSM crypto upgrade? (was Re: Newt's phone calls)
by Eric Blossom 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> It is not clear you need signatures in the secure phone case. Eric >> Blossom's 3DES uses straight DH for key exchange with verbal verification >> that both ends are using the same key. > >How does Eric's box display the negotiated key to the user? (I don't >recall the pair I saw having displays). Latest versions have an LCD display that reports the type of crypto being used (3DES), as well as 24 bits worth of SHA-1 of the public exponentials exchanged. Alice sends g^x mod p, Bob sends g^y mod p. Let m = min(g^x mod p, g^y mod p) and n = max(g^x mod p, g^y mod p). compute v = SHA (concat (OCTET_REP (m), OCTET_REP (n))). Display the high 24 bits of v. >Also I thought it would be kind of cute if there were some way for >phones to exchange their signature keys `face to face' as well. Currently, absent some kind of widely deployed public key infrastructure, there are no signature keys used. This also means that the units do *not* contain any long term secrets, just the session key which is destroyed at the end of the call. Eric

1 0

Where's reference? (was:RE: [DES] DES Key Recovery Project, Progress Report #7)
by Mullen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>---------- >>From: Phil Karn[SMTP:karn@qualcomm.com] >>>If past cryptographic software is any indication, the DES Cracker >>>will be available from an overseas ftp site within hours of release in >>>the US. >> >>And lacking that, the author can always print it out on paper and >>physically mail it out of the country; this is specifically allowed by >>the new Commerce rules as I understand them. And who's to say that the >>overseas FTP copies weren't scanned from such a paper copy? :-) >> >>Phil > Where can I get a reference to this? I thought you weren't supposed to transmit cryptographic code out of the U.S. under any means, including print... >(???) > >~ Patrick >

1 0