December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by Dan Geer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Steve Bellovin writes: It is dangerously naive to label this success the ``last nail for US crypto export policy''. Everyone concerned with this issue, from the NSA to the FBI to anyone who wants to use crypto, understands this and accepts it. 40-bit keys are good for protection against casual snooping, and nothing more -- and no one is going to claim that you need supercomputers to crack them. In fact, I assert that the U.S. government is *happy* about these results -- because it's going to push folks towards wanting stronger crypto for export. The only problem, of course, is the terms under which such code can be exported... I'll go further -- in my opinion, the only reason the government doesn't want DES to fall just yet is that alternatives aren't ready. That is, the banks and financial institutions, and for that matter the government agencies, have not converted to 3DES or Clipper or what have you, and can't do so on short notice; the commercial products they need just aren't ready yet. No one wants to risk a loss of confidence in the financial system. Two years from now, though, when some key escrow products are ready, it may be a different story. Steve is absolutely right on the money, particularly about the likely happiness on the government side. The true explanation of the current effort is a testimony to the strategic skill of the regulators, but it is not as represented aloud. Export controls are meaningless without domestic use restrictions and domestic use restrictions will never pass the test of the First Amendment. Therefore, in an effort to obtain what cannot be obtained politically, this administration makes the following ploy: (1) Withhold from American companies the wherewithal to compete internationally by crippling the products they may export; (2) Offer to those companies that will include the functional equivalent of domestic use restrictions in their products a competitive advantage that could never otherwise withstand any fairness test; (3) Declare the resulting imposition of domestic use controls to be the "voice of the marketplace" and "voluntary." This is as shameful as saying that a rape victim was "asking for it." --dan

1 0

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A couple points: * The 1st Amendment does protect some lies. If I say "Jim Choate is a Venusian albatross," the statement is probably (?) a lie, but I doubt you'll prevail in a libel suit. What damages do you have? That's the key, I believe -- the statement has to lower you in the opinion of others. * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of libel. It is, they say, a rich man's game -- if I'm libeled by the NYT, I'm probably not going t be able to sue them, but Donald Trump can. Moreover, if I don't have the resources to sue but the statement is libelous, it creates a *presumption* in the minds of the readers that the article is certainly true. (If it were not, I would have sued, right?) * The concept you may be searching for is consensual speech, which I believe a society should tolerate. Libelous speech isn't consensual, though obscenity is. -Declan On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > Hi, > > It has been asserted by at least one member that the 1st Amendment protects > libelous or other defamatory speech. > > This is hokem. The 1st most certainly does not protect lies in any form. It > protects opinion, this is distinctly different then stating a untruth about > some party or distribution of material with the attributation to them > without their permission. > > No civilized society can exist that permits lies and other defamations of > character and expect to survive for any length of time. Simply for no other > reason than contracts and other such instruments would not be worth the > paper they were printed on. Let alone any laws or other issuances from the > government itself. > > > ARTICLE I. > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, > and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. > > > Where in there do you see a right to lie, cheat, or steal? If it did, it > would be a lie because it would not protect the very freedom it says it is. > > > Jim Choate > CyberTects > ravage(a)ssz.com > > >

1 0

Re: libsln.htm -- Is Libel a Crime?
by aga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 28 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote: > At 07:33 AM 1/28/97 -0500, aga wrote: > >On Mon, 27 Jan 1997, jim bell wrote: > > > >> At 01:14 AM 1/27/97 -0600, ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: > > >> >These postings do not prove that libel is a crime. It is because libel > >> >is not a crime. Libel is a tort, and unlike with crime, the government > >> >cannot initiate a legal action against someone for libel. Only injured > >> >(libeled) individuals and not the government can sue in a libel case. > >> > >> On the contrary, in some jurisdictions libel is indeed a crime. However, > >> that doesn't mean that prosecutions happen anymore, but the laws are (in > >> some places) still on the books. > > > > >Jim, either you are full of shit or that Law is VERY > >unconstitutional. The first amendment prohibits any Criminal Laws > >from being made against libel. > > You'd think that, wouldn't you? Yes, I agree that those laws are > unconstitutional, but so is about 90+% of what the Federal government does > today. Sigh. > > Criminal libel statutes are apparently (in the US, at least) a holdover from > an earlier era in which government took the place of King George, and wanted > the power to punish people who were too outspoken. The fact that they are > "never" (?) used anymore is presumably a reflection of their > unconstitutionality. Criminal libel statues should also be considered > unconstitutional because they give way too much leeway to the prosecutor to > decide whom to prosecute. His friends will never be charged, but his > enemies will. > > One obvious problem with the LACK of a criminal libel statute, from the > standpoint of the "government-controlling-class," or "the bigshots," is that > it's impossible to sue (and collect from) a (comparatively) poor person for > defaming him...but it's still possible to put him in jail. Civil libel is, > therefore, essentially useless to a government agent as a means of keeping > the masses in line. > > > Myself, I believe that libel should be eliminated as a cause of action in > civil cases as well as it has, de facto, in the criminal area. If anything, > the ability to sue for libel makes things worse: There is an illusion that > this is easy and straightforward, if not economical. It is neither. The > result is that people are actually MORE likely to believe a printed > falsehood because they incorrectly assume that if it wasn't true, it > couldn't be printed. > > > > > Jim Bell > jimbell(a)pacifier.com > Interesting analysis here, but remember; libel is just one kind of "defamation" and an action for defamation will always be actionable. The constitution gives us the right to call the President a motherfucker any time we want to, and it also gives the motherfucker the right to sue. Sueing is better than fighting in the streets. This is the SLOWEST I have ever seen Telnet, today.

1 0

Re: uae_1.html (UAE censoring Internet)
by Wayne Clerke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've checked the filtering out already ... it's pretty extensive. Far, far more than Singapore's 'hundred' or so pages. The granularity is such that things like http://www.domain/~user/main may be passed, while a link from that page to a subpage may be blocked. I guess they can afford to do this with so few users and little traffic. Never thought I'd be real interested in how Net Nanny worked ... but I am now. I'd be happy to hear from anyone with good ideas (or (accessible) pointers) about how to minimize the effects of this stupidity ... :-( Regards, Mail: <a href=mailto:wclerke@emirates.net.ae>Wayne Clerke</a> PGP key ID: AEB2546D FP: D663D11E DA19D74F 5032DC7E E001B702 PGP mail welcome. Voice: +971 506 43 48 53 If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space. ---------- > From: Lynx_User(a)linux.nycmetro.com > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: uae_1.html > Date: Tuesday, 28 January 1997 12:26 > > > 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 -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2i mQDNAy/T4WIAAAEGAMoa0wYpHlGTFe7fEJeKoDs9xaiSt0/lSjN8u8APrqRg1S+v Z9AXoZ9jnDWzEE8t75PieCPNx8PlX5Z1rnwXfYjpEGR4JiYFBC4ThO8zHE+3V4vv 3JihVe8RpI6Cl+6lLspxh5xVlC6Ode5s+CGvUG1aKqNG5PcI9KSzmnUgyC7UFV66 63ySxOiG2I8KPF3Dx9svk2B76JV/f+9LmuHcJuargmlZSZ3+LXdAOIHJoXKH4uPA fkpiJUvUX8gorrJUbQAFEbQmV2F5bmUgQ2xlcmtlIDx3Y2xlcmtlQGVtaXJhdGVz Lm5ldC5hZT6JAJUDBRAw418r3ic1/dqHwMcBAdZxA/9KFTdRSV12mvi9PogHZ+Vp qXwwxfi7PufQsnZ+QJyXcZ9AXlZg4KGok6/EHCrRmolGyNvmn48nY46BTF/ztS// KpK14TQPnBytKg3cz+bqq9yVVKga5ryF56PYK5SSp3doouNG8yOQkLK6NppbPc7O wjyfHWkgZzKuVDpf/w/Hf7QpV2F5bmUgQ2xlcmtlIDx3Y2xlcmtlQGV4dHJvLnVj Yy5zdS5vei5hdT6JAJUDBRAw42AT3ic1/dqHwMcBAaYUA/9+H96ZnKQpQ2igwRkb hCy1MrvoOddvfSyL5g+V2PdhraLQDE753hJNtC+rRnZYRI9DdrIh3Pio8hqlCoqF cWo2GRaaxh4nqe+UXcTCOKFZ8sX6S8Jfvz2NeYjdkDsuza7r4vI3w9fxWjFG/Q6A +UAuDLfuIF54oA7fXap4r98eS4kA1QMFEC/T5sDUX8gorrJUbQEBbcEF/1x4XLSo UheynBv9lZtVDYdzg5qBQRUKMlHeKHvuDvLHHhCnxy0EqID4sloQAW3hAIf33sCE Os08LWB+VsNtE3nqkrfs54vEdm+OnCiBTwT2o9bcjMXjwSUhEBT0/1dsDGP4boGg gsR6fgaks8kIjuTiLeCJ0aSlVz7VVNgBr8klj1Vi8vMrTrs5jpx9Rh4/DLa8HvXl isr4RHDx290J5yd66U5dwPtwL5PcSGqFWtGfyFUpFjrB92sIzU4cE9+WzokAVQMF EC/T5pxJuCRZ+BFKkwEBHtoCAI/0vtRlvDE4+IMWTfOmU/TuJM80ltVZl9+MOdn3 4EGSf5TO5MIGu9sLIO+mTTTZXZNbFNo0AMyUZAEVDh+JEGQ= =fHhI -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

1 0

Cats Out of Bags
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- "In an interview Tuesday, [David L.] Aaron [the Feds' Crypto Ambassador] disputed the industry's view that the U.S. efforts to control cryptographic technology are being outstripped by the pace of the technology. "When I talk to other governments," he said, "they still don't feel that the cat is out of the bag." What the fuck do *they* know? DCF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBMu+CdoVO4r4sgSPhAQHMqgQAhLoHArHx76zdXu8yM7WrThPi0pn8U5wG IQQItZFQAK84MnnbKDEDsW4SW5e9pM7JaFWbFqUg4VooAnKRd/2oITSijEW57jsR SQrhdqztR5fX82Wi9kBNsx92+McywzaeJBI6t+oTEYqqUlhQhzCoJiUpjMu9Q9FR 2gg8Mc01l4E= =MgUH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

exporting stego
by Syntel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a quickie, Does the present ITAR / DoC regulations cover the export of Steganography programs? thanks Steveo

2 1

Re: PGP Key Preview...
by falk＠Eng.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> is there a way to preview the contents of a received public key, > without adding it automatically to the public key ring? Trivial. Just have pgp look at the file without giving it any commands. I.e. instead of pgp -ka <filename> do pgp <filename> Pgp will examine the file, tell you it contains keys, show them to you and then ask if you want to add them to your keyring. This is the way I normally add keys, just because I like to look at *any* file before I add it to any system.

1 0

Re: Last nail for US crypto export policy?
by falk＠Eng.Sun.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I just ran out of asswipe. > Does anyone have any RSA Data Security, Inc. stock they'd like to > sell? Now, now. I don't think RSADSI had any illusions of 40-bit keys being secure; they just wanted to find out just *how* insecure they were. I suspect that this crack will *benefit* RSADSI, and the rest of the crypto community, by helping to convince the feds to ease up.

2 1

Re: Libel & the 1st Amendment
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:46 AM 1/29/1997, Declan McCullagh wrote: > * Many 1st Amendment experts don't believe in the legal concept of > libel. It is, they say, a rich man's game -- if I'm libeled by the > NYT, I'm probably not going t be able to sue them, but Donald Trump > can. Moreover, if I don't have the resources to sue but the > statement is libelous, it creates a *presumption* in the minds of > the readers that the article is certainly true. (If it were not, I > would have sued, right?) The wealthy also use libel suits to suppress dissent. Greg's point that poor people aren't worth suing is only true if the motivation is financial. Often it is not. Conveniently, many of those whose silence is desired are among the petty bourgeouis and have a net worth of roughly $50,000. Enough to make the suit appear legitimate, but not enough to allow the target to brush off the legal fees, if they win the case. Consider also the artificial distinction between private and public figures. It is easier for a private figure to sue for libel. Yet, the most influential people in the country are private figures. Reporters must tread very carefully when covering the activities of these people. Thus, we hear little of them. It would be interesting to know when libel law was first introduced to the United States. Does anybody know? John Peter Zenger

2 1

Physician, Heal Thyself!
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If I say I doubt this message will make into the "Approved By Sandy" list, it perhaps will, but my very mention of this may mean Fearless Leader will then chuck it into his Reject pile, but then.... Our Founder wrote: #Silly things happen when one responds literally to an obvious #metaphor. (see, "analogy.") See "sarcasm." Once again, Sandy flames, but calls it erudition. He uses sophistry to explain why *his* flames are actually just "corrections". #Nonsense. Richard may have read my response on the Unedited list #and Paul post on the Moderated list, but I sent my response to #Nope, wrong again. I referenced sophistry and hypocracy. I #leave the significance of the difference as an exercise to the #student. (Hint: one is an argument to the man, the other isn't.) More pointless sarcasm. This is the stuff Sandy would presumably dump into his "not fit for True Cypherpunks" pile, except that he wrote it, and so it is by definition approved. Utter hypocrisy. #And wrong yet again. Not a personal attack but commentary on #wooly thinking. Remember children, "If it comes from Sandy and appears to be a flame, it really isn't. It is just a comment on "woolly thinking."" #> One might wonder just what the rules of proper decorum are. #One might read my posts on this point and pay attention. And I urge our Enlightened Leader to take his own medicine. Stop flaming the list and calling it mere commentary. Xanthar -- --

3 2