December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Ebonics
by Matthew J. Miszewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:29 AM 12/20/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: (snip) >De honks be chimin.' Code be fly! I's huffa be gots to be sizing, bitch. >PGP 3 be dope, nuffin but bad! > >I be axing you if it be outa honkeyland or outa Afrika? Dat bitch Reno be >sayin' it be 'legal be usin' dope 'warez. Day be hos. Jesus Tim. You're letting your lilly white show. -feeling-oppressed-by-every-law-in-existance-white-boy Matt

8 8

Re: Dale defends free society from the NSApunks
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:Date: Fri, 20 Dec 1996 14:10:11 -0800 :From: Rich Graves <rcgraves(a)disposable.com> :Stop bashing Dale, you ADL/CFR/NSA thought police, you. I can recognize sarcasm! You're on the list! Yes, THE list! Yours from NSA.

2 1

Re: Executing Encrypted Code
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-12-20 19:54:09 EST, ph(a)netcom.com (Peter Hendrickson) writes: << > I believe this is a pipedream. As it stands now, virtually all of the > software that requires special hardware dongles is ridiculously expensive, > even compared to similar offerings from other companies. >> Well.... it seems to me that if the software is going to be so expensive.. that would THEN motivate to put dongles on.. seeing as these are the hardest to crack.

1 0

RE: Life with Dale
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Timothy C. May [.....]what was left of her [is] rotting in a grave somewhere north of me. ....... [...] interestingly, the Cypherpunks had a big beach party between Pescadero (where Dubroff lived) and Half Moon Bay (where she flew out of) just a couple of days prior to her departure. (This was the beach party put together by Doug Barnes, last spring.) ....................................................... Coincidence? .. Blanc <g> > > > >

1 0

Re: Executing Encrypted Code
by Dalban 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Scott V. McGuire wrote: > You should expect software companies to make more money and for prices to > come down. Remember, there's not just one software company. This scheme > would force some of the people who would copy software to buy it, > increasing the profits to the software companies. So, why would the price > come down? Well, because of the increased profit margin, there is now > room for the price to come down, and since there is competition among > software companies, at least one of them will lower prices for the > advantage it will give them. The others will have to follow. And therefor I write: Of course that would be in a microsoft-less world where there wasn't one company who controlled huge market shares, who dominated the industry and who didn't have both government and 'big business' in their pocket. Microsoft is the great 'teflon corportation' able to shake off controversy after controversy regarding everything from hostile marketing strategies to product dumping. Since Microsoft already maintains a virtual monopoly I don't see how making the user pay will serve justice. In your world we'd have to pay for whatever inferiour product is handed to us... not only limiting our choice and freedom but making Microsoft that much more powerful. My two bits, take it or leave it. Dalban

3 2

Re: FWD: PGP-fone Mailing List Archive
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>reachable off the PGP Fone Registry, but the exact URL is : > http://pgp.rivertown.net/pgp-fone/archives Actually seems to be http://pgp.rivertown.net/pgp-fone/archive/ # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

Reflections on the Bernstein ruling
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(Please keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer yet, and that my comments are intended only as the reflections of an amateur and are intended as discussion fodder, not legal advice.) Folks seem to be very excited about Judge Patel's ruling in the Bernstein case - and with good reason. It was, for example, a first-page above-the-fold item in both of the Bay Area's legal newspapers today. Unfortunately, most of the media reports have done a poor job of interpreting the ruling, and it's easy to draw bad conclusions from erratic news reports about the case. The decision is available online <http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/Legal/961206.decision> thanks to the folks at EFF. I thought list members might appreciate a summary of the decision and its potential effects. 1. What the ruling said In brief, Judge Patel ruled that Category XIII(b) (the category which refers to cryptographic equipment/software) is unconstitutional because it functions as a prior restraint upon speech without providing important procedural safeguards which are required when a prior restraint scheme is put into place. She ruled that the "technical data" provision of the ITAR is also unconstitutional when it refers to technical data about Category XIII(b) items because of the lack of procedural safeguards. Mopping up other points raised by the suit, Judge Patel ruled that the term "defense article" as defined in 22 CFR 120.6 should be read to elide the phrase "or technical data"; and that when interpreted that way, the terms "defense article", "defense service", and "technical data" are not unconstitutionally vague. She also ruled that the term "export" is not unconstitutionally vague, and writes (in 'dicta', which is legalese for "offhand comment", e.g., without precedential value but interesting as a hint re what's going on in the judge's mind) that placing software on an "Internet site" which can be accessed from a foreign country is an export for ITAR purposes. She also ruled that the "fundamental research in science and engineering" (120.11(8)) and "general scientific, mathematical, or engineering principles" (120.10(5)) exceptions to the definition of "technical data" are void because they are too vague. As far as I can tell, they are thus no longer available to potential ITAR defendants. 2. What the ruling didn't say Judge Patel declined to address the merits of two of Bernstein's arguments: that cryptographic software is independently worthy of First Amendment protection as a tool which enables confidential speech and privacy, and that the ITAR scheme violates the Administrative Procedure Act. She also refused to grant Bernstein a preliminary injunction which would have prohibited the US Government from prosecuting him for teaching his class this spring, because her ruling means that his proposed activities are not (for now) illegal. The opinion also narrowly fails to say whether or not Category XIII(b) is content-based or content-neutral; but reaches its conclusion by pointing out that such a determination isn't necessary, because even if XIII(b) is content-neutral, it is still unconstitutional. (* My reading of the opinion diverges from the EFF's, as reported in their 12/17 press release, on this point. I think my interpretation is correct. YMMV.) 3. What the ruling means Some messages that I've seen have suggested that her ruling means that the ITAR does not apply to crypto of any kind; or that crypto can now be exported in, variously, the Ninth Circuit, or Northern California, or Berkeley. Strictly speaking, Judge Patel's ruling is not binding precedent in any court. The doctrine of "stare decisis", which says that courts should not disturb existing precedent, suggests that other district courts in the Northern District of California will follow Judge Patel's ruling, at least until the Ninth Circuit addresses the issue (in this case or a different one). But "stare decisis" is a policy statement, not law; and, as the decision in _Karn v. Dept of State_ makes clear (by ruling that the First Amendment does not prevent applying Category XIII(b) to source code), district courts around the country are free to disagree with each other and issue contradictory or incompatible opinions. (I'm interested in any analysis which would suggest that her ruling is binding on the ND CA courts for reasons other than stare decisis; I'm not aware of other grounds, but I don't know everything, either. Comments?) Further, Judge Patel's ruling yesterday is dependent upon her earlier ruling which held that source code is speech for First Amendment purposes. That ruling has not yet been reviewed at the appellate level, and is not uncontroversial nor universally accepted. If another court disagrees with that ruling, Judge Patel's otherwise convincing reasoning in this case (which says that the lack of procedural safeguards for this prior-restraint scheme is unconstitutional) is irrelevant - because without speech, the First Amendment (and its hostility to prior restraint) isn't applicable. It's also significant because her earlier ruling said that source code is speech - and her reasoning for reaching that result does not apply to object code or executables. It's also unclear that Judge Patel's ruling is enough to make export of crypto source legal by people/organizations located even in the Northern District of CA. Venue is proper, in an ITAR case, in any jurisdiction which the defense articles have moved through. (18 USC 3237(a); _US v. Durrani_ 659 F.Supp 1177, 1182 (D. Conn, 1987); an easy analogy is to the _US v. Thomas_ "Amateur Action" case, where Tennessee venue was proper for prosecution of California defendants who sent porn into Tennessee.) So it's at least arguable that the feds could simply bring an ITAR prosecution in another district, if exported crypto flowed through that district. (But I don't think they can do so against Dan Bernstein because of "res judicata", a doctrine which says that once two parties have fully litigated an issue, they cannot come back to the same court - or a different one - and ask to relitigate the same issue.) So while the ruling has considerable historical, cultural, and symbolic significance, it's dangerous to assume that it means that export restrictions on crypto are dead. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto. |

4 3

Dale defends free society from the NSApunks (was Re: Encryption ?
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:There are a lot of NSA people here on cypherpunks, and they try very :hard to control encryption, to make everyone think it is difficult, to :discourage independent inquiry. They don't have to discourage anything, we never talk about encryption here..... But thats the master plan, to bore them into leaving!!

2 1

Re: Ebonics
by Mark Rosen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Yeah, Matt, in a free society I wouldn't have to "speak Ebonics." > > (Personally, I interviewed several folks while I was at Intel who could not > speak standard English. I recommended against their hiring, and they in > fact did not get invites to be interviewed at the main facilities. So much > for their jive talk habits.) > > Understand, I have nothing against the colored people speaking "Ebonics" to > each other, or to anyone who'll listen. But I don't have to deal with this > nonsense, nor do I have to hire them. > > (Until the People's Republic of Political Correctness demands that I > "justify" why not speaking standard English is a "valid job requirement," > and refuses to take my "Because I say it is" as a valid answer. Not > surprisingly, the Clintonistas have decided to enter the Proposition 209 > challenge on the side of the pro-discrimination side.) > > If I were designing a genocidal program to destroy the colored race, I > would be pushing for Ebonics, for encouraging coloreds to study "Human > Potential" and "African History" instead of math, science, and engineering, > and pushing for hiring quotas. > There are several problems with your argument: * You are making glaring generalizations regarding all members of an ethnic body; you don't seem to realize that intellect is based not on color or how you talk but on your brain (which has the same color and other basic properties in all humans, I believe) * You are completely forgetting the other "non-English" group in America; the so-called White Trash or heavy Southern accents, which are violate just as many prissy and stuck up rules of grammar as Ebonics * You don't have to speak ebonics. You also don't have to speak with a Southern twang (or whatever the politically correct name for that is) I also think that you are forgetting about the human aspect of your discrimination. For a second, put yourself in the place of a really smart black guy applying for a job at Intel. He is overqualified for the job. You turn him down. Have you ever wondered what it does to a person to be turned down not on the basis of their moral character or intellect but by their skin? For someone to be told that they are stupid and are not competent to do this job? You don't realize that you are crushing _human_ lives, people who have feelings. If you would just put yourself in their place, you would realize the hurt that your are inflicting. Out of curiousity, do you refuse from hiring people with Southern Accents? Or people who have heavy "asian" accents? I'm very surprised that a smart person like you, who believes in the power of strong cryptography, one of the greatest equalizing forces in the world, actively discriminates against other people who don't look or talk like you. Mark Rosen FireSoft - http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Pines/2690 Mark Eats AOL - http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/6660

10 14

Re: Credentials without Identity--Race Bits
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:From: dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM) :Why is the fascist United State of America considered a "civilized :country"? It lets in the refuse of the earth to offer them the opportunity of a better life? With little guarantee thay will repay the offer?

1 0