December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RRE: Cybersitter
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 05:21:41.54 To: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Cybersitter [Forwarded with permission.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 08:23:58 -0500 (EST) From: kkc(a)COMPETITOR.NET(K.K. Campbell) Subject: Cybersitter & Wallace ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WHO'S WATCHING THE 'WATCHERS'? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ by K.K. CAMPBELL Net.column The Toronto Star Thursday, January 30, 1997 One of the most controversial aspects of cyberspace is censorship. A widely accepted solution to eliminating the "unwanted" is self-imposed censorship, through special software which blocks out types of content not desired. The appeal of these programs is that people needn't rely on distant authority to dictate acceptability. We police ourselves; or at least we have some control over how we will be policed. The news media have generally blessed "blocking software" with unexamined sprinklings of warm praise. After all, who dares suggest that stopping your 5-year-old from seeing graphic gore, violence or sex is bad? What could go wrong with that? But, now critics are starting to ask, who is "watching the watchers?" Could these watchers themselves develop more "creative applications" for their power to silence? Could they apply their own personal prejudices, or even their own hidden agendas? Or is that paranoid nonsense? Ask U.S. author Jonathan Wallace (jw(a)bway.net) Wallace says California's Solid Oak software, which produces Cybersitter blocking software, has added his site to its "block list" in retaliation for critical remarks he made about the company. Solid Oak claims 900,000 registered Cybersitter users. Wallace, a New York-based software business executive and attorney is co-author of the book _Sex, Laws and Cyberspace_ (Henry Holt, $34.95). Net.column will discuss the book with its author next installment. He's also editor of the monthly Webzine _The Ethical Spectacle_, which focuses on "the intersection of ethics, law and politics in our society." The Webzine recently asked readers to not purchase Cybersitter because of continuing reports of Solid Oak's "unethical behavior." "In the book," Wallace says in a press release explaining his current attitude to Cybersitter, "we took the position -- naively, I now think -- that use of blocking software by parents was a less restrictive alternative to government censorship. We never expected that publishers of blocking software would block sites for their political content alone, as Solid Oak has done." Solid Oak unequivocably denies there is a political agenda of any kind et work. "Absolutely, 100 per cent not," Marc Kanter told the Toronto Star in a phone interview. Kanter is Solid Oak's vice president of marketing. "There is no hidden political agenda." Kanter says someone criticizing Cybersitter would not be blocked. He says Wallace's site is blocked because it "links information on how to hack Cybersitter. We do not allow our customers to have hacking information for the program." Wallace told The Star that's not true. "There's no such information on my site, nor is there on Peacefire's. I link to some pages maintained by Glen Roberts, who -- along with some political commentary on Cybersitter, and analysis of its blocking policy -- offers a (legal) work-around. However, since his site is separately blocked by Cybersitter, there is no reason for them to block my site as well." Kanter dismisses Wallace's complaints. "The guy didn't do any homework," Kanter says. "There are a few people who are right-wing activists who are out there that are trying to defame the filtering program. This is what leads to stories like you are doing -- and hopefully you are not supportive of their actions." Wallace didn't know what to make of that. "I've been called a communist, a socialist, and a wild-eyed civil libertarian, but no one has ever called me right wing before," he says. "Kanter has obviously never read _The Ethical Spectacle_." While Cybersitter, with fanfare, claims its mission is to block Web sites containing pornography, obscenity, gratuitous violence, hate speech, criminal activity, etc., an increasing number of investigative Net.journalists also claim Cybersitter, without fanfare, blocks access to Web sites based on political criteria. FOR OUR OWN GOOD This brouhaha began last summer when CyberWire Dispatch revealed Cybersitter blocks sites based on political agenda, such as the feminist National Organization for Women (www.now.org) Dispatch journalist/editor Brock Meeks asked Solid Oak CEO Brian Milburn (bmilburn(a)solidoak.com) about that. "Milburn isn't shy about it," Meeks reported. "He was outright indignant when he originally told Dispatch: 'If NOW doesn't like it, tough'." Solid Oak threatened to sue Dispatch for its article, but things quieted down. In December, the issue erupted again when 18-yearold Bennett Haselton (bennett(a)peacefire.org) wrote an article about the company's selection of blocked sites: "Cybersitter: Where Do We Not Want You To Go Today?" (www.peacefire.org/censorware/CYBERsitter.html) Haselton takes computer science and math at Vanderbilt University. "Peacefire" is his own creation, a teen cyberrights group, average age 15. According to various Net.journalists, Solid Oak now threatened Bennett with a lawsuit and even tried to get the Peacefire site booted from its host system (media3.net) by telling Media3 that Haselton was making it "his mission in life to defame our product" by "routinely" publishing names of sites blocked by Cybersitter. (It should be noted it's easy to figure out which sites are blocked, the software provides an output list. Try "playboy.com" -- blocked. Try "whitehouse.com" -- okay. Try "peacefire.org" -- blocked. Try "now.org" -- blocked.) Unsuccessful in his pressure against Media3, Milburn instead included the peacefire.org domain in Cybersitter's block list. On Dec. 9, HotWired picked the story up (www.wired.com/news/story/901.html) NetAction Notes (www.netaction.org) quickly followed suit. Haselton told his story to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the EFF assured him it would represent him, should Solid Oak deliver on its threat to sue. On Dec. 20, The Netly News (http://netlynews.com) continued the investigation of Cybersitter. Aside from the irony of Cybersitter censoring the newsgroup alt.censorship, it "blocks dozens of ISPs and university sites such as well .com, zoom.com, anon.penet.fi, best.com, webpower.com, ftp.std.com, cts.com, gwis2.seas.gwu.edu, hss.cmu.edu, c2.org, echonyc.com and accounting.com. Now, sadly, some libraries are using it." BLACK LIST TO BLOCK LIST Wallace read the reports of legal threats against the teenager and thought "Milburn was acting like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla." So Wallace added a link on _The Spectacle_'s homepage called "Don't Buy Cybersitter." "I wrote the company," he says, "informing them of my actions and telling them that they misrepresent their product when they claim it blocks only indecent material, hate speech and the like." Wallace says Solid Oak responded by adding his Webzine to its block list. Learning of this, Wallace wrote Milburn and Solid Oak tech support. "I pointed out that _The Spectacle_ does not fit any of their published criteria for blocking a site," he says. "I received mail in return demanding that I cease writing to them and calling my mail 'harassment' -- with a copy to the postmaster at my ISP." Kanter acknowledges this. "He spoke to us more than once or twice -- he continued to send mail -- mail like that is considered 'not wanted' and is automatically sent back." By the end of our phone conversation, Kanter had dropped the "right-wing activist" explanation of who was behind the Cybersitter complaints and offered a new one: "Some of this rhetoric was started by someone we believe to be a highly -- how do you put it? -- a highly homosexual individual, who did not believe we should have the right to block any sites or links to alternative lifestyles. That's how a lot of this got started." Why is the National Organization for Women site blocked? "Very simple. It contains links to gay and lesbian hardcore material. I was on their page this morning, and there is a lot of offensive material linked directly. Just go to their links page and start looking at 'gay' and 'feminism.' Our parents don't want that kind of stuff." I asked if he really meant "hardcore" -- suggestive of full-penetration images/stories. "Yes, by links through links," he clarifies. If someone followed the links starting at now.org, they'd eventually find hardcore sexual material. Kanter says parents are not permitted to know which sites Cybersitter blocks. "That list is not given to anybody under any circumstances -- including law enforcement agencies that have requested it." He says it's to prevent the list from "getting into the wrong hands." It would be a cybermap to naughtiness for some kids. And parents aren't allowed to remove blocked sites from Cybersitter, although they can add to the list. Cyber-rights activists claim the incident underscores warnings they've issued for years: While censorship software may first aim to protect children against "pornography," it can quickly be adopted for political agendas. _The Ethical Spectacle_ is at www.spectacle.org. Solid Oak's Web site can be found at www.solidoak.com. -30- Copyright 1997 K.K. Campbell

1 0

RRE: Fear and Loathing at the FCC
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 07:16:51.99 To: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Fear and Loathing at the FCC [Forwarded with permission. This is the closest thing I've found to real research on the FCC-access-charges-for-ISP's action alert you have no doubt seen recently. Right or wrong, this was an incredibly badly designed alert. Please let me recommend that you *never* forward any kind of alert message unless it is signed, includes detailed background information or at least a URL that points to background information, and includes a time-out date. For more information on the proper construction of Internet action alerts, see http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/tno/january-1994.html#action ] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:18:54 -0600 From: Patrick Douglas Crispen <crispen(a)campus.mci.net> Subject: TOURBUS -- 13 FEBRUARY 1997 -- EDUPAGE / FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC /~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~|~~\ | FREE FUGEES CD - WIN AT WWW.MEDIADOME.COM / | \ |__________|__________/___________|__________|__________/ | \ / /______|-----\ | Haven't come to Mediadome(sm) yet? We're still |//////| | | giving away free Fugees CDs. Just sign up for |//////| | | our digital dispatch-better hurry, only 4 more |//////| | | days! Come see our Fugees Webisode & play the |//////| | | 'Video' game - based on the Fugees' hit song & |//////| | | video, 'Ready Or Not'- only at www.mediadome.com |//////| | ~~~/~~~\~~/~~~\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~\~~~~~ \___/ \___/ T h e I n t e r n e t T o u r B u s \___/ TODAY'S STOP: EDUPAGE / FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC TODAY'S ADDRESSES: http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84 http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html Hi, kids! Put your seat belts on, because our latest adventure is about to get under way! Before we pull out of the terminal, though, can I interest anyone in a magazine or two? :) +--- HUGE TOURBUS SAVINGS ON THE HOTTEST MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS! ----+ Time, Newsweek, Money, PC Magazine, ZD Internet, Net, Yahoo, and tons more! Plus, pick from 50 FREE subscriptions. Send email now to: +-------------------- ( tourbus(a)magazines.com ) ---------------------+ By the way, I have a sinking feeling that a few of you may want to forward part of today's post to some of your friends. I would be happy if you did this -- just make sure that you give credit where credit is due. :) EDUPAGE ------- I think I am losing my mind. I distinctly remember pulling our little bus of Internet happiness into Edupage before, but for the life of me I can't find a copy of that post anywhere in the TOURBUS archives (which, by the way, can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm) Anyway, Edupage is an absolutely wonderful, free, e-mail-based "summary of news items on information technology, and is provided three times each week as a service by Educom -- a consortium of leading colleges and universities seeking to transform education through the use of information technology." Edupage is actually a misnomer, because Edupage doesn't really talk about education. Rather, Edupage send you one paragraph summaries of technology stories printed in leading newspapers and magazines (like Business Week, Information Week, Forbes, etc.). Each issue of Edupage usually contains between 6 and 10 of these summaries. If you want to subscribe to Edupage (remember, it's FREE), just send an e-mail letter to LISTPROC(a)EDUCOM.UNC.EDU with the command SUBSCRIBE EDUPAGE YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME in the body of your e-mail letter, replacing YOURFIRSTNAME and YOURLASTNAME with your first and last names. You can also find Edupage on the Web at http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html Edupage is clearly one of my favorite resources on the Net. It provides cutting-edge technology information in a size that is easy to digest, and as a professional college student I *often* find myself quoting and applying the information that I have found in Edupage. FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC ---------------------------- Over the past couple of weeks, you may have received e-mail letters telling you that Many local telephone companies have filed a proposal with the FCC [The United States' Federal Communications Commission] to impose per minute charges for Internet service. They contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. At first, I thought that this was simply a new version of the old "modem tax" hoax (http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84) that has been floating around the Net since *1987*. After all, the current FCC story has all of the markings of a classic urban legend: 1. It uses official-looking language; 2. It mentions a government agency or an organization with which everyone is familiar; 3. It contains a plea for you to take some sort of immediate action; and 4. It requests that you forward the warning letter to as many people as possible. Besides, according to an article that appeared in this morning's Edupage, ONLINE COMPANIES ASK TELCOS, "WHERE'S THE BEEF?" Tired of telephone companies' complaints that Internet usage is overwhelming their network capacity, the Internet Access Coalition has released findings contending that Net usage is, in reality, a bonanza for the Bells. The study found that local carriers received a total of $1.4 billion in 1995 in revenues resulting from the installation of second lines in homes, while spending only $245 million to beef up their networks for the additional usage. A Bell Atlantic spokesman says the real problem is that the telcos have no idea when a line will be used for data rather than voice, and thus tied up longer. Both sides agree that the ultimate solution is higher capacity networks. (Business Week 17 Feb 97) Well, out of curiosity -- and out of a deep-felt desire to avoid studying for the two major economics tests that I have next week -- your fearless bus driver decided to call the FCC in Washington to see if anyone there was willing to talk about this rather explosive issue. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that the FCC only has one employee, she is a secretary, and her job is to transfer all incoming telephone calls into voice mail hell. :) Actually, I talked to some nice people at the FCC who faxed me a 10 page explanation of what's *really* going on. Unfortunately, the 10 page explanation was written in "FCC-ese," so I am going to have to translate their explanation into English for you (and I can assure you that, since I know *NOTHING* about telephony, my translation will probably contain a few inaccuracies; if it does, please let me know). First, some local telephone companies have indeed asked the FCC to allow them to assess a per minute access charge on the telephone lines used by Internet Service Providers. Local telephone companies currently charge long-distance carriers (like AT&T and MCI) an interstate access charge for the long-distance traffic that travels over their local lines, and the local telephone companies would like to see this charge extended to include the high-speed lines that your local Internet Service Provider uses to access the Internet. In December, the FCC rejected the telephone companies' request and tentatively concluded "that the existing pricing structure for information services should remain in place." In other words, the FCC has tentatively concluded that Internet service providers should *NOT* be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. The FCC now seeks the public's comments on this conclusion. Unfortunately, the "warning" letter that is currently circulating around the Internet gives the impression that some sort of sinister operation is afoot here, that the FCC and the telephone companies are trying to sneak this proposal through without anyone noticing, and that it is up to each and every one of us to stop the evil FCC. What garbage. In fact, the FCC has, at least tentatively, REJECTED the telephone companies' proposal. The FCC is now simply asking you if you agree or disagree with their decision. The most disappointing aspect of this whole situation is that because of the misinformation that has been distributed across the Internet over the past couple of weeks, the FCC has received 100,000+ e-mail letters, most of which flame them for making a decision that EVERYONE AGREES WITH! Hands down, the flaming of the FCC is one of the Internet's most shameful acts ever. I also discovered another thing about the FCC that increased my respect for their organization one-hundred-fold. Part of the 10 page explanation that the FCC sent me states that their "existing rules have been designed for traditional circuit-switched voice networks, and thus may hinder the development of emerging packet-switched data networks." Because of this, the FCC is also seeking the public's comments on the implications of the Internet and its usage through the public switched telephone network. Folks, *ANY* government agency that stops and says 'hey, we can ALWAYS use some more information so that we are better prepared for whatever happens in the future' has earned my respect and admiration. By the way, most of the information that I have shared with you today can be found on the FCC's "ISP" homepage at http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html If you would like to send your comments to the folks at the FCC (the deadline for comments about their decision not to impose interstate access changes on Internet service providers is Friday, February 14th), make sure that you check the FCC's ISP Web page first. At the bottom of this page are some pretty specific instructions on what you need to put in the subject line of you e-mail letter before you submit it to the FCC. Personally, I'm going to leave the poor folks at the FCC alone for a while. They seem to be doing a great job in the face of unnecessary (and misinformed) opposition. TODAY'S ADDRESSES ----------------- http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84 http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html That's it for this week. Have a safe and happy weekend, and make sure that you visit all 3 sponsors who made today's TOURBUS post possible: Mediadome, Magazines.Com, and ... *--------------------------- MASS MUSIC -----------------------------* More Music For Your Money! Over 185,000 Titles Just A Click Away. FREE Weekly Music Zine - Buy 7 Get 1 FREE Everyday - Treasure Hunt! TOURBUS Rider Discount code: SAVENOW! use it and save 5% *------------------( http://www.Mass-Music.com )-------------------* -------------------------------- TODAY'S SOUTHERN WORD OF THE DAY -------------------------------- LAYMAN (noun). A tart fruit. Usage: "Hunny, git me some more of that layman aid!" (Special thanks goes to Tom Bates for today's word) YOU CAN FIND ALL OF THE OLD SOUTHERN WORDS OF THE DAY ON THE SOUTHERN WORD HOMEPAGE AT http://ua1vm.ua.edu/~crispen/word.html ====================================================================== Join : Send SUBSCRIBE TOURBUS Your Name to LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Leave : Send SIGNOFF TOURBUS to LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Info : On the Web at http://www.worldvillage.com/tourbus.htm Advertising: E-mail BobRankin(a)MHV.net w/ Subject: SEND TBRATES =--------------------------------------------------------------------= For info on my new book "Atlas for the Information Superhighway" send an e-mail letter to LISTSERV(a)UA1VM.UA.EDU that says GET ATLAS INFO F=MAIL in the body of your e-mail letter ====================================================================== TOURBUS - (c) Copyright 1997, Patrick Crispen and Bob Rankin All rights reserved. Redistribution is allowed only with permission. Send this copy to 3 friends and tell them to get on the Bus! (\__/) .~ ~. )) /O O ./ .' Patrick Douglas Crispen {O__, \ { The University of Alabama / . . ) \ crispen(a)campus.mci.net |-| '-' \ } http://ua1vm.ua.edu/~crispen/ .( _( )_.' '---.~_ _ _& Warning: squirrels.

1 0

RRE: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 08:14:58.81 To: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:15:40 -0500 From: Lauren Amy Gelman <gelmanl(a)GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU> [...] February 12, 1997 Nancy Crowe Regulatory Policy Division Bureau of Export Administration Department of Commerce Room 2705 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230. Docket No. 960918265-6366-03 Dear Ms. Crowe The United States Public Policy Committee for the Association for Computing (USACM) welcomes this opportunity to submit our views on the Interim Rule issued by the Department of Commerce with regard to "Encryption Items Transferred From the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List." The USACM believes it is in the best interest of the U.S. government to promote the widespread use of strong encryption. >From our perspective the Interim Rule fails to recognize the legitimate needs and interests of academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology. Thus, the Interim Rule must be modified before it can resolve the many problems with the current export controls on encryption technologies. Introduction and Summary The Association for Computing is an international professional society whose 76,000 members (60,000 in the U.S.) represent a critical mass of computer scientists in education, industry, and government. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We have identified a number of serious problems with specific provisions of the Interim Rule. As a professional society of computer scientists which produces a number of peer-reviewed technical journals, we are concerned that the Interim Rule will hamper both communication and education in our field. Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which refers to the distinction between printed and electronic publications of cryptographic materials is unworkable under the new paradigms of electronic publishing and communications. Electronic media, including the World Wide Web, listserves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Provisions of the Rule, specifically Parts 7.34.9 and 744.9, which affect teaching cryptography to foreign students are vague and contradictory. Educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but also occur in national and industry labs and by distance education. Restrictions on cryptography exports must not interfere with the traditional freedom of access over digital networks which is indispensable to maintain motivated and effective academic and research communities. We also believe that the development of public policies and technical standards for communications technologies, such as a Key Recovery Infrastructure (KRI), raise vital issues of privacy, competitiveness, and scientific innovation. Parts 740.8 and 742.15 raise a number of troubling issues for the computing community. We believe it is unwise for the Commerce Department to link relaxing export controls on 56-bit encryption to the development of a KRI as both the desirability and the feasibility of such a system remains uncertain. Key recovery products have not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard and there is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Also, Supplement No. 7 to part 742 (which requires that businesses who wish to export 56-bit encryption before 1998 submit a biannual business plan for developing key recovery products) will stifle the innovation of new cryptography technologies and discourage the process of scientific innovation. We believe the Commerce Department should not promulgate regulations which prohibit U.S. research and development from responding to market demands and limit the ability of Americans using new on-line services to protect their privacy. Analysis The USACM has identified electronic publication, education, research and development, key recovery, and privacy as problematic areas which need addressing. We have outlined our concerns below: Electronic Publishing It is unreasonable and unconstitutional to distinguish between printed and electronic distribution of encryption source code as set forth in the note to Part 7.34.3 (b)(2) and (b)(3). A Federal Court in California has ruled in Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State that source code is speech and is thus protected under the first amendment. This distinction is also currently being challenged in a federal court in the District of Columbia in Karn v. U.S. Department of State. The USACM joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Internet Society in submitting an Amici Curiae brief in the case which argued that such language is an impermissible regulation aimed at the suppression of expression. As computer scientists we see no practical reason why the Commerce Department should insist on creating a distinction when one does not exist. The ACM is the publisher of numerous scientific publications and conference proceedings. They range from our flagship journal Communications of the ACM (CACM) to the on-line, peer-reviewed journal Experimental Algorithms. All 76,000 members of ACM, including 15,000 members overseas, receive CACM by mail and have access to ACM's on-line publications. ACM foresees a time when all its publishing will be electronic and on-line. At that time, it will need interoperable encryption technology available in the U.S. and in its mirror sites abroad to dispense its material. Its subscribers worldwide will need access to secure, commercial encryption as well. An article which described the development of a new cryptographic algorithm would likely appear in one of the many technical journals or conference proceedings published by ACM or the Institute for Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE), another international professional society. In fact a number of the groundbreaking articles in the field of cryptography science were originally published by ACM and IEEE. Publication of encryption algorithms is extremely important to the field of cryptography. In order for an algorithm to be trusted, it must be challenged. To do that, the code must be made widely available. Foreign members of ACM will be unable to access in electronic format the same articles they currently receive in the printed journal. And, it is technically impossible, at this late date, to partition ACM's publications into distinct paper and electronic (hence encryptable) media. Electronic communications, including the World Wide Web, list serves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Science is a global pursuit and there exists a open communications network between scientists in different countries. Part 734.2 which prohibits making cryptographic software available outside the U.S. will not only eliminate this international communication but also technical communication among U.S. scientists. In electronic communications it is not always clear to whom the information is being transmitted. WWW sites and Usenet news groups are accessible by anyone with a modem. Video conferences can be retransmitted overseas and moderated listserves are difficult to control. The Interim Rule refers to an individual taking "precautions adequate to prevent unauthorized transfer of such code outside the U.S." It is our belief that it would be impossible to be certain of any precautions taken. This will effectively eliminate all communications on electronic media that describe or discuss cryptographic source code. We believe the interim rule must be revised to eliminate the distinction between printed and electronic source code and to allow for open communications within scientific communities. Restricting these communications will retard the evolution of the science and the development of new algorithms and cryptographic devices. Education Many ACM members are computer science professors and teachers, so we are concerned about the contradictions in the proposed regulations with regards to education. A number of fields and sub-fields address cryptography as part of their curricula. Part 734.9 states that "Educational Information" is not subject to the new regulations if it is "released by instruction in catalog courses and associated teaching laboratories of academic institutions." Computer science, mathematics, engineering, and electronic security may all include technical instruction in encryption technologies and would be covered in U.S. university classrooms. However, questions arise with regard to distance and home or overseas education because of Part 744.9. It states that "No U.S. person may, without a license from BXA, provide technical assistance (including training) to foreign persons with the intent to aid a foreign person in the development or manufacture outside the United States..." While Part 744.9 defines a U.S. person it does not define "technical assistance" or "training." It is uncertain whether a U.S. professor teaching a course in which foreign students are registered, or teaching a course in cryptography overseas would be "training" a foreigner to develop a cryptographic device if the course work was more detailed than "a discussion of information about cryptography." This would affect course studies as disparate as 'number theory' and 'local area networks'. Also, educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but are also found in national and industry labs. Many computer scientists receive their first hands on training after they graduate from their University. It is unclear whether this "training" or "technical assistance" is in violation of the Interim Rule. The intent of the training is give the new employee the practical tools necessary to participate in the field of cryptography science, and is not necessarily intended to be project or employer specific. While the General prohibition in Part 744.9 discusses the meaning of intent as applied to an academic setting, it is not clear if "academic setting" can be applied to instruction which occurs outside of the University environment. The argument made previously with regard to digital media also applies to education. As part of their course work, students often use electronic media as resources (WWW, digital libraries, CD-ROMs), as a communication device for the class outside the classroom (electronic mail, listserves), and to learn from listening to the discussions among research scientists (Usenet groups, listserves). Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which covers encryption source code in electronic form or media will restrict these types of educational instruction. Instructors will be unable to take advantage of digital media in their courses. Students studying cryptography will be unfairly disadvantaged as they will be unable to access valuable resources even in the process of furthering their education. The USACM believes the contradictions in Parts 7.34 and 744.9 must be resolved in a clear manner so educators are not required to reduce the quality of their courses for fear of misinterpreting the Interim Rule. Specifically, "academic setting," "training," and "technical assistance" must be defined, and distance education, and academic research and communication must be addressed. Research and Development Encryption policies must reflect the needs of the global market. The international demand for products which incorporate strong cryptographic tools is growing. Such products are widely available and produced by a number of nations. U.S. scientists have been prominent in the development of current encryption technologies. The field has developed though research and development efforts along many different tangents, only one of which describes key recovery products. There is little evidence that the demand for cryptography tools is limited to those products which incorporate key recovery protocols. Part 742.15 (which states that businesses must submit a business plan for the development of key recovery products before they may export 56- bit software; the license must be renewed biannually until 1998 when only key recovery products will be allowed for export) will restrict the U.S. to producing only products which incorporate KRI protocols. Mandating that businesses develop key recovery products will also impede the natural market development of novel and innovative systems. Part 740 hypothesizes that a worldwide KRI will be desirable, feasible, and in place by 1998. However it is unclear whether key recovery is the best alternative. Research along new tangents will continue in non- industry and non-U.S. settings. A new protocol may be discovered which is considered a better choice for a worldwide infrastructure. There will exist a great market demand for variety in choosing a security system to fit the needs of the distinct commercial group. If this happens U.S. scientists and industry will be at a disadvantage as they will have only a core competence in key recovery protocols as per Part 740.8. There are a variety of commercial groups interested in utilizing the Internet for business interactions and transactions. Without interoperable encryption programs, commercial needs in an increasing global environment cannot be met. Supplement No. 4 to Part 742 states that a product can not interact with another product whose key recovery system has been "altered, bypassed, disabled, or otherwise rendered inoperative." This will be a major source of problems for researchers and educators, as well as government and commercial institutions. The result of a system not being able to talk to another system because of an intentional or accidental disabling of the KRI protocols can have a very large impact on telemedicine, research, government operations, and commercial enterprises. The USACM believes the Interim Rule should be rewritten to avoid dissuading innovation and development and eliminating the U.S.'s core competency in cryptography. It should also recognize the need for consistency in interoperable systems. Key Recovery The USACM recognizes that there is a real market demand for key recovery products from business and government employers. However, the viability of a KRI has not yet been determined. It has not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard. There is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Part 740 describes the development of a Key Recovery Infrastructure within two years. We believe it is unwise for the United States to insist on the development of a untested, unproved technology for a worldwide infrastructure. The National Research Council report stated that a feasibility study needed to be performed on a smaller scale before key escrow could be seriously proposed for commercial applications. We believe this warning applies to KRI as well. While key recovery tools may be appropriate in some settings, we believe it would be wrong to impose such restrictions on users or businesses and the Interim Rule should not dictate that businesses limit their research to a potentially unworkable system. Privacy The USACM believes that certain principles should be reflected in a national cryptography policy. Encryption should be used for privacy protection and to encourage the development of technologies and institutional practices which will provide real privacy for the future users of the NII and real security for the protection of the system. The USACM believes that transferring the regulation of cryptography to the Commerce Department could establish United States leadership in protecting the privacy rights of its citizens. However the Interim Rule fails to do that. Conclusion We recognize that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting national security. However, whether or not the worldwide infrastructure is achieved, the role of national security agencies will remain difficult. The government's proposal to balance national security, business, and privacy interests by creating a Key Recovery Infrastructure within the next two years is overly aggressive. We suggest that the development of a policy that serves the long term interests of our nation's security will not be one based on a Key Recovery Infrastructure, but rather one that anticipates the widespread availability of strong encryption and the multifaceted demands of a global economy. Toward that end, the interests in protecting open research within the U.S. academic community will be crucial. Sincerely, Barbara Simons, Ph.D Chair, United States Public Policy Office for the Association for Computing The ACM, founded in 1947, is an international non-profit educational and scientific society dedicated to the development and use of information technology, and to addressing the impact information technology has on the world's major social challenges. The Association's activities include the publication of scholarly journals and the sponsorship of special interest groups (SIGS) in numerous disciplines. ACM has 76,000 members. The 60,000 who reside in the United States are academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology and have a strong interest in the development of sound encryption policies. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We respond to requests for information and technical expertise from United States government agencies and departments, seeks to influence relevant United States government policies on behalf of the computing community and the public, and provides information to the ACM on relevant United States government activities. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Amy Gelman gelmanl(a)gwis2.circ.gwu.edu George Washington University gelman(a)epic.org Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program gelman(a)acm.org

1 0

Re: Good Bye Cypherpunks!
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> writes: > [...] > By the way, I can forward to those who are interested these four or five > posts which got "Meta-Censored." (Unless too many people request > them...I'll promise to forward them to the first five people who request > them...then some of you can repost them to the list and see if they make it > through.) I'd like to see them. In fact I'd like to collect the posts which slipped through the crack and didn't make it to either cp-flames or cp, on the assumption that these are the posts which tell the story. In particular I'd like to see the post that John Gilmore refered to as `Mr Nemesis' post, wherein someone allegedly slanders/libels C2, to the extent that Sandy dropped it from both lists, if anyone who was subscribed to cypherpunks-unedited at the time has it still. Unfortunately I was subscribed to only cypherpuks-flames and cypherpunks (the edited list) at the time, so didn't get to see it. I'm on Lance Cottrell's cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net now, which is subscribed to the cypherpunks-unedited list. At the moment Lance is setting Reply-To: to cypherpunks(a)toad.com, but I presume he'll drop that when John Gilmore drops cypherpunks(a)toad.com. The moderation decisions that I saw prior to moving to cypherpunks-unedited after Sandy's return, and change of policy, were even more arbitrary. I figured I wasn't even interested to see what they were any more, given that the cypherpunks(a)toad.com was shortly being closed anyway, so just subscribed to cypherpunks-unedited. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

1 0

RRE: Fear and Loathing at the FCC
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 07:16:51.99 To: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Fear and Loathing at the FCC [Forwarded with permission. This is the closest thing I've found to real research on the FCC-access-charges-for-ISP's action alert you have no doubt seen recently. Right or wrong, this was an incredibly badly designed alert. Please let me recommend that you *never* forward any kind of alert message unless it is signed, includes detailed background information or at least a URL that points to background information, and includes a time-out date. For more information on the proper construction of Internet action alerts, see http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/tno/january-1994.html#action ] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 20:18:54 -0600 From: Patrick Douglas Crispen <crispen(a)campus.mci.net> Subject: TOURBUS -- 13 FEBRUARY 1997 -- EDUPAGE / FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC /~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~|~~\ | FREE FUGEES CD - WIN AT WWW.MEDIADOME.COM / | \ |__________|__________/___________|__________|__________/ | \ / /______|-----\ | Haven't come to Mediadome(sm) yet? We're still |//////| | | giving away free Fugees CDs. Just sign up for |//////| | | our digital dispatch-better hurry, only 4 more |//////| | | days! Come see our Fugees Webisode & play the |//////| | | 'Video' game - based on the Fugees' hit song & |//////| | | video, 'Ready Or Not'- only at www.mediadome.com |//////| | ~~~/~~~\~~/~~~\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~\~~~~~ \___/ \___/ T h e I n t e r n e t T o u r B u s \___/ TODAY'S STOP: EDUPAGE / FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC TODAY'S ADDRESSES: http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84 http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html Hi, kids! Put your seat belts on, because our latest adventure is about to get under way! Before we pull out of the terminal, though, can I interest anyone in a magazine or two? :) +--- HUGE TOURBUS SAVINGS ON THE HOTTEST MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTIONS! ----+ Time, Newsweek, Money, PC Magazine, ZD Internet, Net, Yahoo, and tons more! Plus, pick from 50 FREE subscriptions. Send email now to: +-------------------- ( tourbus(a)magazines.com ) ---------------------+ By the way, I have a sinking feeling that a few of you may want to forward part of today's post to some of your friends. I would be happy if you did this -- just make sure that you give credit where credit is due. :) EDUPAGE ------- I think I am losing my mind. I distinctly remember pulling our little bus of Internet happiness into Edupage before, but for the life of me I can't find a copy of that post anywhere in the TOURBUS archives (which, by the way, can be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm) Anyway, Edupage is an absolutely wonderful, free, e-mail-based "summary of news items on information technology, and is provided three times each week as a service by Educom -- a consortium of leading colleges and universities seeking to transform education through the use of information technology." Edupage is actually a misnomer, because Edupage doesn't really talk about education. Rather, Edupage send you one paragraph summaries of technology stories printed in leading newspapers and magazines (like Business Week, Information Week, Forbes, etc.). Each issue of Edupage usually contains between 6 and 10 of these summaries. If you want to subscribe to Edupage (remember, it's FREE), just send an e-mail letter to LISTPROC(a)EDUCOM.UNC.EDU with the command SUBSCRIBE EDUPAGE YOURFIRSTNAME YOURLASTNAME in the body of your e-mail letter, replacing YOURFIRSTNAME and YOURLASTNAME with your first and last names. You can also find Edupage on the Web at http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html Edupage is clearly one of my favorite resources on the Net. It provides cutting-edge technology information in a size that is easy to digest, and as a professional college student I *often* find myself quoting and applying the information that I have found in Edupage. FEAR AND LOATHING AT THE FCC ---------------------------- Over the past couple of weeks, you may have received e-mail letters telling you that Many local telephone companies have filed a proposal with the FCC [The United States' Federal Communications Commission] to impose per minute charges for Internet service. They contend that use of Internet has or will hinder the operation of the telephone network. At first, I thought that this was simply a new version of the old "modem tax" hoax (http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84) that has been floating around the Net since *1987*. After all, the current FCC story has all of the markings of a classic urban legend: 1. It uses official-looking language; 2. It mentions a government agency or an organization with which everyone is familiar; 3. It contains a plea for you to take some sort of immediate action; and 4. It requests that you forward the warning letter to as many people as possible. Besides, according to an article that appeared in this morning's Edupage, ONLINE COMPANIES ASK TELCOS, "WHERE'S THE BEEF?" Tired of telephone companies' complaints that Internet usage is overwhelming their network capacity, the Internet Access Coalition has released findings contending that Net usage is, in reality, a bonanza for the Bells. The study found that local carriers received a total of $1.4 billion in 1995 in revenues resulting from the installation of second lines in homes, while spending only $245 million to beef up their networks for the additional usage. A Bell Atlantic spokesman says the real problem is that the telcos have no idea when a line will be used for data rather than voice, and thus tied up longer. Both sides agree that the ultimate solution is higher capacity networks. (Business Week 17 Feb 97) Well, out of curiosity -- and out of a deep-felt desire to avoid studying for the two major economics tests that I have next week -- your fearless bus driver decided to call the FCC in Washington to see if anyone there was willing to talk about this rather explosive issue. Unfortunately, I soon discovered that the FCC only has one employee, she is a secretary, and her job is to transfer all incoming telephone calls into voice mail hell. :) Actually, I talked to some nice people at the FCC who faxed me a 10 page explanation of what's *really* going on. Unfortunately, the 10 page explanation was written in "FCC-ese," so I am going to have to translate their explanation into English for you (and I can assure you that, since I know *NOTHING* about telephony, my translation will probably contain a few inaccuracies; if it does, please let me know). First, some local telephone companies have indeed asked the FCC to allow them to assess a per minute access charge on the telephone lines used by Internet Service Providers. Local telephone companies currently charge long-distance carriers (like AT&T and MCI) an interstate access charge for the long-distance traffic that travels over their local lines, and the local telephone companies would like to see this charge extended to include the high-speed lines that your local Internet Service Provider uses to access the Internet. In December, the FCC rejected the telephone companies' request and tentatively concluded "that the existing pricing structure for information services should remain in place." In other words, the FCC has tentatively concluded that Internet service providers should *NOT* be subject to the interstate access charges that local telephone companies currently assess on long-distance carriers. The FCC now seeks the public's comments on this conclusion. Unfortunately, the "warning" letter that is currently circulating around the Internet gives the impression that some sort of sinister operation is afoot here, that the FCC and the telephone companies are trying to sneak this proposal through without anyone noticing, and that it is up to each and every one of us to stop the evil FCC. What garbage. In fact, the FCC has, at least tentatively, REJECTED the telephone companies' proposal. The FCC is now simply asking you if you agree or disagree with their decision. The most disappointing aspect of this whole situation is that because of the misinformation that has been distributed across the Internet over the past couple of weeks, the FCC has received 100,000+ e-mail letters, most of which flame them for making a decision that EVERYONE AGREES WITH! Hands down, the flaming of the FCC is one of the Internet's most shameful acts ever. I also discovered another thing about the FCC that increased my respect for their organization one-hundred-fold. Part of the 10 page explanation that the FCC sent me states that their "existing rules have been designed for traditional circuit-switched voice networks, and thus may hinder the development of emerging packet-switched data networks." Because of this, the FCC is also seeking the public's comments on the implications of the Internet and its usage through the public switched telephone network. Folks, *ANY* government agency that stops and says 'hey, we can ALWAYS use some more information so that we are better prepared for whatever happens in the future' has earned my respect and admiration. By the way, most of the information that I have shared with you today can be found on the FCC's "ISP" homepage at http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html If you would like to send your comments to the folks at the FCC (the deadline for comments about their decision not to impose interstate access changes on Internet service providers is Friday, February 14th), make sure that you check the FCC's ISP Web page first. At the bottom of this page are some pretty specific instructions on what you need to put in the subject line of you e-mail letter before you submit it to the FCC. Personally, I'm going to leave the poor folks at the FCC alone for a while. They seem to be doing a great job in the face of unnecessary (and misinformed) opposition. TODAY'S ADDRESSES ----------------- http://www.worldvillage.com/wv/hotel/tourbus/archives.htm http://www.educom.edu/web/edupage.html http://www.eff.org/papers/eegtti/eeg_83.html#SEC84 http://www.fcc.gov/isp.html That's it for this week. Have a safe and happy weekend, and make sure that you visit all 3 sponsors who made today's TOURBUS post possible: Mediadome, Magazines.Com, and ... *--------------------------- MASS MUSIC -----------------------------* More Music For Your Money! Over 185,000 Titles Just A Click Away. FREE Weekly Music Zine - Buy 7 Get 1 FREE Everyday - Treasure Hunt! TOURBUS Rider Discount code: SAVENOW! use it and save 5% *------------------( http://www.Mass-Music.com )-------------------* -------------------------------- TODAY'S SOUTHERN WORD OF THE DAY -------------------------------- LAYMAN (noun). A tart fruit. Usage: "Hunny, git me some more of that layman aid!" (Special thanks goes to Tom Bates for today's word) YOU CAN FIND ALL OF THE OLD SOUTHERN WORDS OF THE DAY ON THE SOUTHERN WORD HOMEPAGE AT http://ua1vm.ua.edu/~crispen/word.html ====================================================================== Join : Send SUBSCRIBE TOURBUS Your Name to LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Leave : Send SIGNOFF TOURBUS to LISTSERV(a)LISTSERV.AOL.COM Info : On the Web at http://www.worldvillage.com/tourbus.htm Advertising: E-mail BobRankin(a)MHV.net w/ Subject: SEND TBRATES =--------------------------------------------------------------------= For info on my new book "Atlas for the Information Superhighway" send an e-mail letter to LISTSERV(a)UA1VM.UA.EDU that says GET ATLAS INFO F=MAIL in the body of your e-mail letter ====================================================================== TOURBUS - (c) Copyright 1997, Patrick Crispen and Bob Rankin All rights reserved. Redistribution is allowed only with permission. Send this copy to 3 friends and tell them to get on the Bus! (\__/) .~ ~. )) /O O ./ .' Patrick Douglas Crispen {O__, \ { The University of Alabama / . . ) \ crispen(a)campus.mci.net |-| '-' \ } http://ua1vm.ua.edu/~crispen/ .( _( )_.' '---.~_ _ _& Warning: squirrels.

1 0

RRE: Cybersitter
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 05:21:41.54 To: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: Cybersitter [Forwarded with permission.] =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 97 08:23:58 -0500 (EST) From: kkc(a)COMPETITOR.NET(K.K. Campbell) Subject: Cybersitter & Wallace ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ WHO'S WATCHING THE 'WATCHERS'? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ by K.K. CAMPBELL Net.column The Toronto Star Thursday, January 30, 1997 One of the most controversial aspects of cyberspace is censorship. A widely accepted solution to eliminating the "unwanted" is self-imposed censorship, through special software which blocks out types of content not desired. The appeal of these programs is that people needn't rely on distant authority to dictate acceptability. We police ourselves; or at least we have some control over how we will be policed. The news media have generally blessed "blocking software" with unexamined sprinklings of warm praise. After all, who dares suggest that stopping your 5-year-old from seeing graphic gore, violence or sex is bad? What could go wrong with that? But, now critics are starting to ask, who is "watching the watchers?" Could these watchers themselves develop more "creative applications" for their power to silence? Could they apply their own personal prejudices, or even their own hidden agendas? Or is that paranoid nonsense? Ask U.S. author Jonathan Wallace (jw(a)bway.net) Wallace says California's Solid Oak software, which produces Cybersitter blocking software, has added his site to its "block list" in retaliation for critical remarks he made about the company. Solid Oak claims 900,000 registered Cybersitter users. Wallace, a New York-based software business executive and attorney is co-author of the book _Sex, Laws and Cyberspace_ (Henry Holt, $34.95). Net.column will discuss the book with its author next installment. He's also editor of the monthly Webzine _The Ethical Spectacle_, which focuses on "the intersection of ethics, law and politics in our society." The Webzine recently asked readers to not purchase Cybersitter because of continuing reports of Solid Oak's "unethical behavior." "In the book," Wallace says in a press release explaining his current attitude to Cybersitter, "we took the position -- naively, I now think -- that use of blocking software by parents was a less restrictive alternative to government censorship. We never expected that publishers of blocking software would block sites for their political content alone, as Solid Oak has done." Solid Oak unequivocably denies there is a political agenda of any kind et work. "Absolutely, 100 per cent not," Marc Kanter told the Toronto Star in a phone interview. Kanter is Solid Oak's vice president of marketing. "There is no hidden political agenda." Kanter says someone criticizing Cybersitter would not be blocked. He says Wallace's site is blocked because it "links information on how to hack Cybersitter. We do not allow our customers to have hacking information for the program." Wallace told The Star that's not true. "There's no such information on my site, nor is there on Peacefire's. I link to some pages maintained by Glen Roberts, who -- along with some political commentary on Cybersitter, and analysis of its blocking policy -- offers a (legal) work-around. However, since his site is separately blocked by Cybersitter, there is no reason for them to block my site as well." Kanter dismisses Wallace's complaints. "The guy didn't do any homework," Kanter says. "There are a few people who are right-wing activists who are out there that are trying to defame the filtering program. This is what leads to stories like you are doing -- and hopefully you are not supportive of their actions." Wallace didn't know what to make of that. "I've been called a communist, a socialist, and a wild-eyed civil libertarian, but no one has ever called me right wing before," he says. "Kanter has obviously never read _The Ethical Spectacle_." While Cybersitter, with fanfare, claims its mission is to block Web sites containing pornography, obscenity, gratuitous violence, hate speech, criminal activity, etc., an increasing number of investigative Net.journalists also claim Cybersitter, without fanfare, blocks access to Web sites based on political criteria. FOR OUR OWN GOOD This brouhaha began last summer when CyberWire Dispatch revealed Cybersitter blocks sites based on political agenda, such as the feminist National Organization for Women (www.now.org) Dispatch journalist/editor Brock Meeks asked Solid Oak CEO Brian Milburn (bmilburn(a)solidoak.com) about that. "Milburn isn't shy about it," Meeks reported. "He was outright indignant when he originally told Dispatch: 'If NOW doesn't like it, tough'." Solid Oak threatened to sue Dispatch for its article, but things quieted down. In December, the issue erupted again when 18-yearold Bennett Haselton (bennett(a)peacefire.org) wrote an article about the company's selection of blocked sites: "Cybersitter: Where Do We Not Want You To Go Today?" (www.peacefire.org/censorware/CYBERsitter.html) Haselton takes computer science and math at Vanderbilt University. "Peacefire" is his own creation, a teen cyberrights group, average age 15. According to various Net.journalists, Solid Oak now threatened Bennett with a lawsuit and even tried to get the Peacefire site booted from its host system (media3.net) by telling Media3 that Haselton was making it "his mission in life to defame our product" by "routinely" publishing names of sites blocked by Cybersitter. (It should be noted it's easy to figure out which sites are blocked, the software provides an output list. Try "playboy.com" -- blocked. Try "whitehouse.com" -- okay. Try "peacefire.org" -- blocked. Try "now.org" -- blocked.) Unsuccessful in his pressure against Media3, Milburn instead included the peacefire.org domain in Cybersitter's block list. On Dec. 9, HotWired picked the story up (www.wired.com/news/story/901.html) NetAction Notes (www.netaction.org) quickly followed suit. Haselton told his story to the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the EFF assured him it would represent him, should Solid Oak deliver on its threat to sue. On Dec. 20, The Netly News (http://netlynews.com) continued the investigation of Cybersitter. Aside from the irony of Cybersitter censoring the newsgroup alt.censorship, it "blocks dozens of ISPs and university sites such as well .com, zoom.com, anon.penet.fi, best.com, webpower.com, ftp.std.com, cts.com, gwis2.seas.gwu.edu, hss.cmu.edu, c2.org, echonyc.com and accounting.com. Now, sadly, some libraries are using it." BLACK LIST TO BLOCK LIST Wallace read the reports of legal threats against the teenager and thought "Milburn was acting like the proverbial 800-pound gorilla." So Wallace added a link on _The Spectacle_'s homepage called "Don't Buy Cybersitter." "I wrote the company," he says, "informing them of my actions and telling them that they misrepresent their product when they claim it blocks only indecent material, hate speech and the like." Wallace says Solid Oak responded by adding his Webzine to its block list. Learning of this, Wallace wrote Milburn and Solid Oak tech support. "I pointed out that _The Spectacle_ does not fit any of their published criteria for blocking a site," he says. "I received mail in return demanding that I cease writing to them and calling my mail 'harassment' -- with a copy to the postmaster at my ISP." Kanter acknowledges this. "He spoke to us more than once or twice -- he continued to send mail -- mail like that is considered 'not wanted' and is automatically sent back." By the end of our phone conversation, Kanter had dropped the "right-wing activist" explanation of who was behind the Cybersitter complaints and offered a new one: "Some of this rhetoric was started by someone we believe to be a highly -- how do you put it? -- a highly homosexual individual, who did not believe we should have the right to block any sites or links to alternative lifestyles. That's how a lot of this got started." Why is the National Organization for Women site blocked? "Very simple. It contains links to gay and lesbian hardcore material. I was on their page this morning, and there is a lot of offensive material linked directly. Just go to their links page and start looking at 'gay' and 'feminism.' Our parents don't want that kind of stuff." I asked if he really meant "hardcore" -- suggestive of full-penetration images/stories. "Yes, by links through links," he clarifies. If someone followed the links starting at now.org, they'd eventually find hardcore sexual material. Kanter says parents are not permitted to know which sites Cybersitter blocks. "That list is not given to anybody under any circumstances -- including law enforcement agencies that have requested it." He says it's to prevent the list from "getting into the wrong hands." It would be a cybermap to naughtiness for some kids. And parents aren't allowed to remove blocked sites from Cybersitter, although they can add to the list. Cyber-rights activists claim the incident underscores warnings they've issued for years: While censorship software may first aim to protect children against "pornography," it can quickly be adopted for political agendas. _The Ethical Spectacle_ is at www.spectacle.org. Solid Oak's Web site can be found at www.solidoak.com. -30- Copyright 1997 K.K. Campbell

2 1

RRE: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" 14-FEB-1997 08:14:58.81 To: IN%"rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu" CC: Subj: USACM analysis of Commerce Dept crypto export proposals =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= This message was forwarded through the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE). Send any replies to the original author, listed in the From: field below. You are welcome to send the message along to others but please do not use the "redirect" command. For information on RRE, including instructions for (un)subscribing, send an empty message to rre-help(a)weber.ucsd.edu =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Date: Thu, 13 Feb 1997 22:15:40 -0500 From: Lauren Amy Gelman <gelmanl(a)GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU> [...] February 12, 1997 Nancy Crowe Regulatory Policy Division Bureau of Export Administration Department of Commerce Room 2705 14th Street and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230. Docket No. 960918265-6366-03 Dear Ms. Crowe The United States Public Policy Committee for the Association for Computing (USACM) welcomes this opportunity to submit our views on the Interim Rule issued by the Department of Commerce with regard to "Encryption Items Transferred From the United States Munitions List to the Commerce Control List." The USACM believes it is in the best interest of the U.S. government to promote the widespread use of strong encryption. >From our perspective the Interim Rule fails to recognize the legitimate needs and interests of academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology. Thus, the Interim Rule must be modified before it can resolve the many problems with the current export controls on encryption technologies. Introduction and Summary The Association for Computing is an international professional society whose 76,000 members (60,000 in the U.S.) represent a critical mass of computer scientists in education, industry, and government. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We have identified a number of serious problems with specific provisions of the Interim Rule. As a professional society of computer scientists which produces a number of peer-reviewed technical journals, we are concerned that the Interim Rule will hamper both communication and education in our field. Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which refers to the distinction between printed and electronic publications of cryptographic materials is unworkable under the new paradigms of electronic publishing and communications. Electronic media, including the World Wide Web, listserves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Provisions of the Rule, specifically Parts 7.34.9 and 744.9, which affect teaching cryptography to foreign students are vague and contradictory. Educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but also occur in national and industry labs and by distance education. Restrictions on cryptography exports must not interfere with the traditional freedom of access over digital networks which is indispensable to maintain motivated and effective academic and research communities. We also believe that the development of public policies and technical standards for communications technologies, such as a Key Recovery Infrastructure (KRI), raise vital issues of privacy, competitiveness, and scientific innovation. Parts 740.8 and 742.15 raise a number of troubling issues for the computing community. We believe it is unwise for the Commerce Department to link relaxing export controls on 56-bit encryption to the development of a KRI as both the desirability and the feasibility of such a system remains uncertain. Key recovery products have not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard and there is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Also, Supplement No. 7 to part 742 (which requires that businesses who wish to export 56-bit encryption before 1998 submit a biannual business plan for developing key recovery products) will stifle the innovation of new cryptography technologies and discourage the process of scientific innovation. We believe the Commerce Department should not promulgate regulations which prohibit U.S. research and development from responding to market demands and limit the ability of Americans using new on-line services to protect their privacy. Analysis The USACM has identified electronic publication, education, research and development, key recovery, and privacy as problematic areas which need addressing. We have outlined our concerns below: Electronic Publishing It is unreasonable and unconstitutional to distinguish between printed and electronic distribution of encryption source code as set forth in the note to Part 7.34.3 (b)(2) and (b)(3). A Federal Court in California has ruled in Bernstein v. U.S. Department of State that source code is speech and is thus protected under the first amendment. This distinction is also currently being challenged in a federal court in the District of Columbia in Karn v. U.S. Department of State. The USACM joined the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Internet Society in submitting an Amici Curiae brief in the case which argued that such language is an impermissible regulation aimed at the suppression of expression. As computer scientists we see no practical reason why the Commerce Department should insist on creating a distinction when one does not exist. The ACM is the publisher of numerous scientific publications and conference proceedings. They range from our flagship journal Communications of the ACM (CACM) to the on-line, peer-reviewed journal Experimental Algorithms. All 76,000 members of ACM, including 15,000 members overseas, receive CACM by mail and have access to ACM's on-line publications. ACM foresees a time when all its publishing will be electronic and on-line. At that time, it will need interoperable encryption technology available in the U.S. and in its mirror sites abroad to dispense its material. Its subscribers worldwide will need access to secure, commercial encryption as well. An article which described the development of a new cryptographic algorithm would likely appear in one of the many technical journals or conference proceedings published by ACM or the Institute for Electronics and Electrical Engineers (IEEE), another international professional society. In fact a number of the groundbreaking articles in the field of cryptography science were originally published by ACM and IEEE. Publication of encryption algorithms is extremely important to the field of cryptography. In order for an algorithm to be trusted, it must be challenged. To do that, the code must be made widely available. Foreign members of ACM will be unable to access in electronic format the same articles they currently receive in the printed journal. And, it is technically impossible, at this late date, to partition ACM's publications into distinct paper and electronic (hence encryptable) media. Electronic communications, including the World Wide Web, list serves, Usenet news groups, and video conferencing are becoming the prominent means by which scientists communicate. Science is a global pursuit and there exists a open communications network between scientists in different countries. Part 734.2 which prohibits making cryptographic software available outside the U.S. will not only eliminate this international communication but also technical communication among U.S. scientists. In electronic communications it is not always clear to whom the information is being transmitted. WWW sites and Usenet news groups are accessible by anyone with a modem. Video conferences can be retransmitted overseas and moderated listserves are difficult to control. The Interim Rule refers to an individual taking "precautions adequate to prevent unauthorized transfer of such code outside the U.S." It is our belief that it would be impossible to be certain of any precautions taken. This will effectively eliminate all communications on electronic media that describe or discuss cryptographic source code. We believe the interim rule must be revised to eliminate the distinction between printed and electronic source code and to allow for open communications within scientific communities. Restricting these communications will retard the evolution of the science and the development of new algorithms and cryptographic devices. Education Many ACM members are computer science professors and teachers, so we are concerned about the contradictions in the proposed regulations with regards to education. A number of fields and sub-fields address cryptography as part of their curricula. Part 734.9 states that "Educational Information" is not subject to the new regulations if it is "released by instruction in catalog courses and associated teaching laboratories of academic institutions." Computer science, mathematics, engineering, and electronic security may all include technical instruction in encryption technologies and would be covered in U.S. university classrooms. However, questions arise with regard to distance and home or overseas education because of Part 744.9. It states that "No U.S. person may, without a license from BXA, provide technical assistance (including training) to foreign persons with the intent to aid a foreign person in the development or manufacture outside the United States..." While Part 744.9 defines a U.S. person it does not define "technical assistance" or "training." It is uncertain whether a U.S. professor teaching a course in which foreign students are registered, or teaching a course in cryptography overseas would be "training" a foreigner to develop a cryptographic device if the course work was more detailed than "a discussion of information about cryptography." This would affect course studies as disparate as 'number theory' and 'local area networks'. Also, educational environments are not limited to academic institutions but are also found in national and industry labs. Many computer scientists receive their first hands on training after they graduate from their University. It is unclear whether this "training" or "technical assistance" is in violation of the Interim Rule. The intent of the training is give the new employee the practical tools necessary to participate in the field of cryptography science, and is not necessarily intended to be project or employer specific. While the General prohibition in Part 744.9 discusses the meaning of intent as applied to an academic setting, it is not clear if "academic setting" can be applied to instruction which occurs outside of the University environment. The argument made previously with regard to digital media also applies to education. As part of their course work, students often use electronic media as resources (WWW, digital libraries, CD-ROMs), as a communication device for the class outside the classroom (electronic mail, listserves), and to learn from listening to the discussions among research scientists (Usenet groups, listserves). Part 7.34.3 (b)(3) which covers encryption source code in electronic form or media will restrict these types of educational instruction. Instructors will be unable to take advantage of digital media in their courses. Students studying cryptography will be unfairly disadvantaged as they will be unable to access valuable resources even in the process of furthering their education. The USACM believes the contradictions in Parts 7.34 and 744.9 must be resolved in a clear manner so educators are not required to reduce the quality of their courses for fear of misinterpreting the Interim Rule. Specifically, "academic setting," "training," and "technical assistance" must be defined, and distance education, and academic research and communication must be addressed. Research and Development Encryption policies must reflect the needs of the global market. The international demand for products which incorporate strong cryptographic tools is growing. Such products are widely available and produced by a number of nations. U.S. scientists have been prominent in the development of current encryption technologies. The field has developed though research and development efforts along many different tangents, only one of which describes key recovery products. There is little evidence that the demand for cryptography tools is limited to those products which incorporate key recovery protocols. Part 742.15 (which states that businesses must submit a business plan for the development of key recovery products before they may export 56- bit software; the license must be renewed biannually until 1998 when only key recovery products will be allowed for export) will restrict the U.S. to producing only products which incorporate KRI protocols. Mandating that businesses develop key recovery products will also impede the natural market development of novel and innovative systems. Part 740 hypothesizes that a worldwide KRI will be desirable, feasible, and in place by 1998. However it is unclear whether key recovery is the best alternative. Research along new tangents will continue in non- industry and non-U.S. settings. A new protocol may be discovered which is considered a better choice for a worldwide infrastructure. There will exist a great market demand for variety in choosing a security system to fit the needs of the distinct commercial group. If this happens U.S. scientists and industry will be at a disadvantage as they will have only a core competence in key recovery protocols as per Part 740.8. There are a variety of commercial groups interested in utilizing the Internet for business interactions and transactions. Without interoperable encryption programs, commercial needs in an increasing global environment cannot be met. Supplement No. 4 to Part 742 states that a product can not interact with another product whose key recovery system has been "altered, bypassed, disabled, or otherwise rendered inoperative." This will be a major source of problems for researchers and educators, as well as government and commercial institutions. The result of a system not being able to talk to another system because of an intentional or accidental disabling of the KRI protocols can have a very large impact on telemedicine, research, government operations, and commercial enterprises. The USACM believes the Interim Rule should be rewritten to avoid dissuading innovation and development and eliminating the U.S.'s core competency in cryptography. It should also recognize the need for consistency in interoperable systems. Key Recovery The USACM recognizes that there is a real market demand for key recovery products from business and government employers. However, the viability of a KRI has not yet been determined. It has not yet been subject to the vigorous testing necessary for a proposed standard. There is little understanding of how such a system would operate and what controls would be needed to ensure that it remained secure. Part 740 describes the development of a Key Recovery Infrastructure within two years. We believe it is unwise for the United States to insist on the development of a untested, unproved technology for a worldwide infrastructure. The National Research Council report stated that a feasibility study needed to be performed on a smaller scale before key escrow could be seriously proposed for commercial applications. We believe this warning applies to KRI as well. While key recovery tools may be appropriate in some settings, we believe it would be wrong to impose such restrictions on users or businesses and the Interim Rule should not dictate that businesses limit their research to a potentially unworkable system. Privacy The USACM believes that certain principles should be reflected in a national cryptography policy. Encryption should be used for privacy protection and to encourage the development of technologies and institutional practices which will provide real privacy for the future users of the NII and real security for the protection of the system. The USACM believes that transferring the regulation of cryptography to the Commerce Department could establish United States leadership in protecting the privacy rights of its citizens. However the Interim Rule fails to do that. Conclusion We recognize that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting national security. However, whether or not the worldwide infrastructure is achieved, the role of national security agencies will remain difficult. The government's proposal to balance national security, business, and privacy interests by creating a Key Recovery Infrastructure within the next two years is overly aggressive. We suggest that the development of a policy that serves the long term interests of our nation's security will not be one based on a Key Recovery Infrastructure, but rather one that anticipates the widespread availability of strong encryption and the multifaceted demands of a global economy. Toward that end, the interests in protecting open research within the U.S. academic community will be crucial. Sincerely, Barbara Simons, Ph.D Chair, United States Public Policy Office for the Association for Computing The ACM, founded in 1947, is an international non-profit educational and scientific society dedicated to the development and use of information technology, and to addressing the impact information technology has on the world's major social challenges. The Association's activities include the publication of scholarly journals and the sponsorship of special interest groups (SIGS) in numerous disciplines. ACM has 76,000 members. The 60,000 who reside in the United States are academic, professional, scientific, and ordinary users of telecommunications technology and have a strong interest in the development of sound encryption policies. The USACM provides a means for promoting dialogue on technology policy issues with United States policy makers and the general public. We respond to requests for information and technical expertise from United States government agencies and departments, seeks to influence relevant United States government policies on behalf of the computing community and the public, and provides information to the ACM on relevant United States government activities. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lauren Amy Gelman gelmanl(a)gwis2.circ.gwu.edu George Washington University gelman(a)epic.org Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program gelman(a)acm.org

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Kent Crispin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh allegedly said: > > > On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Jim Choate wrote: > > > I am taking intellectual property rights from nobody. If anything I am > > giving unlimited intellectual rights to the material to humankind for > > posterity. Sorta cypherpunkish, don't you think? > > I am amused by this. Jim's plan sounds much less cypherpunkish than > collectivist. Communal property, ho! > > After all, workers have nothing to lose in this revolution but their > chains. They have a world to gain. Workers of the world, unite! Ad hominems are so much fun, eh? -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F

1 0

Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> > Subject: Re: Private property & the cypherpunks list(s) (fwd) > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:10:36 -0800 (PST) > Jim, if I put "Copyright (c) 1997 by Kent Crispin. All Rights > Reserved." in my .sig, would that constitute a "fair-use header"? As I understand it '(c)' is not considered acceptably close to the normal copyright symbol. What I have been advised is to always spell out 'copyright <date> <person>'. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

Re: Fuck UseNet (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 14:39:41 -0800 (PST) > From: Kent Crispin <kent(a)songbird.com> > But the distributed mailing list is by far the most interesting > solution. Contrary to what some have claimed, it really isn't the > same as usenet -- it allows for distributed control. There is no > doubt that the operator of a mail list host should have the freedom > to set his or her policies as they see fit -- it is their machine, > and their responsibility. And contrariwise, subscribers should have > the freedom to chose list hosts with compatible philosophies. Perhaps in addition to the X-foo structures we have discussed already we might consider adding, X-distrib-policy: foo Where foo might be, Public Domain All rights reserved, contact author for redistribution Distribution for non-commercial uses permitted Refer to authors header Copyleft etc. or whatever the policy might be for a given remailer. This would significantly aid folks in their shopping around. Jim Choate CyberTects ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0