December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Rejecting Dialog with Government Vermin
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> On Tue, Apr 29, 1997 at 06:03:43PM -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > Think of it this way: there are tactical and strategic decisions. > > Strategically, I would like the Federal government to evolve into a form > > that's consistent with the principles of individual freedom, peace, and > > limited government enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. >><SNIP><< > To put a finer point on it, what flaw existed (exists) in the founding People. They are the flaw. The Constitution relies on the voters being rational, or at least putting the country before themselves. Stupid assumption. > fathers dream and actualization that prevented it from being a stable > condition?

1 0

New Israel
by Gordon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Oh geez... Have you heard about NEW ISRAEL yet? It is a 510 page book that addresses one of the primordial obstacles to human life and happiness on our planet Earth, the accursed Middle Eastern conundrum between the Jews and the Palestinians- Arabs-Islamics. The predicate of NEW ISRAEL calls for the creation of a coexistent, with Israel, New Israel in the southern two thirds of the Baja Peninsula, south of California, in North America, with immense benefits for all of those effected. Faced with an impossible dilemma, another choice must be made available. The book explains that new option and all the history, difficulties, and transgressions, that makes the creation of New Israel absolutely necessary. For more information, including an 18 page detailed outline of NEW ISRAEL, and the full 41 page Preface to NEW ISRAEL - which provides rich details about the reasoning and rationale foundation of NEW ISRAEL, visit the NEW ISRAEL website at : http://www.seymourtex.com/newisrael/ni.htm

3 2

EVENT: FCC Universal Service Hearing to be cybercast online!
by Shabbir Safdar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================================================================= _ _ __| | ___ _ __ ___ ___ ___ _ __ __ _ ___ _ _ _ __ ___| |_ / _` |/ _ \ '_ ` _ \ / _ \ / __| '__/ _` |/ __| | | | | '_ \ / _ \ __| | (_| | __/ | | | | | (_) | (__| | | (_| | (__| |_| |_| | | | __/ |_ \__,_|\___|_| |_| |_|\___/ \___|_| \__,_|\___|\__, (_)_| |_|\___|\__| |___/ Government Without Walls Update No.6 http:/www.democracy.net/ May 1 1997 _________________________________________________________________________ Table of Contents - Sit in on live FCC Universal Service hearing: May 7, 9:30am Eastern - Live Town Hall Meeting with FCC Chairman Reed Hundt: May 13, 7pm Eastern - In our archive - About democracy.net / Subscription Information ___________________________________________________________________________ SIT IN ON LIVE FCC UNIVERSAL SERVICE HEARING: WEDNESDAY MAY 7, 9:30AM ET The future of Universal Service in the nation's telecommunications network is one of the key elements of our nation's communications infrastructure. At issue - how to ensure that citizens who live in rural and inner city areas have access to advanced telecommunications services, and how to pay for it. The 1996 Telecommunications Reform Act directed the FCC to answer these questions. After nearly a year of investigation, hearings, and public comment, the FCC will announce its rules on Wednesday May 7th. You can join the proceeding live. Be present, ask questions, and get answers from FCC staff after the hearing. (FCC staff are not allowed to comment on a matter before the Commission before the commissioners have made their ruling.) Best of all, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt will join democracy.net on Tuesday May 13 for an online town hall meeting. Hundt will discuss the Universal Service proceeding and respond to questions from Internet users. * Universal Service Hearing - How To Participate * DATE: Wednesday, May 7, 1997 TIME: 9:30 am Eastern / 6:30 am Pacific (Event will last +/- 3 hours) LOCATION: http://www.democracy.net In advance of the hearing, please visit http://www.democracy.net for background information on the Universal Service issue, including links to various sides of the debate. You can also submit questions in advance. _____________________________________________________________________________ LIVE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH FCC CHAIRMAN REED HUNDT: TUESDAY MAY 13, 7PM ET During the May 7th Universal Service Proceeding, Internet users can submit their questions and comments via democracy.net. On Tuesday May 13, FCC Chairman Reed Hundt will join democracy.net for a live Virtual Town Hall meeting to discuss the Universal Service proceeding, respond to Internet users questions, and discuss other Internet-related issues before the FCC. This is a great opportunity for Internet users to talk with one of the key telecommunications policy makers. * Online Town Hall Meeting with FCC Commissioner Reed Hundt * * How To Participate * DATE: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 TIME: 7:00 pm Eastern / 4:00 pm Pacific LOCATION: http://www.democracy.net Visit http://www.democracy.net/ in advance of the event to submit questions. Additional information can be found at the FCC home page: http://www.fcc.gov _______________________________________________________________________________ IN OUR ARCHIVE * ONLINE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH REP. RICK WHITE NOW AVAILABLE IN OUR ARCHIVE! "I don't want to minimize the National Security concerns -- these concerns are real - but I think we've reached the point where the National Security community is going to have to solve these problems in a new world. You can't delay the arrival of the new world forever." -Rep. Rick White on encryption at 4/10 democracy.net town hall meeting You can listen to the entire transcript of the online town hall meeting, or selected excerpts, at http://www.democracy.net/archive/04101997/ * ONLINE TOWN HALL MEETING WITH REP. ANNA ESHOO NOW AVAILABLE IN OUR ARCHIVE! "I don't think Congress should rush into making decisions about the Internet. There are still far too many Members that are not users themselves, and therefore do not understand the medium." -Rep. Anna Eshoo on Congress and the net at 4/16 democracy.net online town hall meeting You can listen to the entire transcript of the online town hall meeting, or selected excerpts, at http://www.democracy.net/archive/04161997/ _______________________________________________________________________________ ABOUT DEMOCRACY.NET / SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION The democracy.net is a joint project of the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) and the Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW) to explore ways of enhancing citizen participation in the democratic process via the Internet. To this end, democracy.net will host live, interactive cybercasts of Congressional Hearings and online town hall meetings with key policy makers. democracy.net is made possible through the generous support of WebActive (http://www.webactive.com) Public Access Networks (http://www.panix.com) the Democracy Network (http://www.democracynet.org) and DIGEX Internet (http://www.digex.net) More information about the project and its sponsors can be found at http://www.democracy.net/about/ To receive democracy.net announcements automatically, please visit our signup form at http://www.democracy.net/ or send mail to majordomo(a)democracy.net with "subscribe events" in the body of the message. To stop receiving announcements on the democracy.net "events" mailing list, please send mail to majordomo(a)democracy.net with the phrase "unsubscribe events" in the message body. _____________________________________________________________________________ End update no.6 05/01/1997 =============================================================================

1 0

Re: SAFE Bill is a Good Thing--"Crypto For The Masses"
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 22:09 5/01/97 -0500, Mac Norton wrote: >On Thu, 1 May 1997, Alan Davidson wrote: >> 2. CDT Does Not Support The Criminal Provision in SAFE > >I don't get it. CDT loudly supports the bill. The bill >contains the criminal provision. I don't get it. Do you? >MacN Ditto cubed. It's so easy to say, "We oppose it with the criminal provision. We support it without the criminal provision." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

coolness
by Staff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nice site. why not add your url to ours?! visit http://212.net thanks. staff at http://212.net

1 0

Re: Layoffs at PGP
by Martin Janzen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well, PGP spokesman Mike Nelson wins the award for the Freudian slip of the day: "Internet Fast-Forward is not as closely related to the tools we develop for individuals for privacy," he said. And the fact that Fast-Forward filters ads which are an "inimical part of some of the ^^^^^^^^ emerging Web commerce models ... we don't want to hinder this development." The http://c.gp.cs.cmu.edu:5103/prog/webster server says: Inimical \In*im"i*cal\ (?; 277), a. [L. inimicalis, fr. inimicus unfriendly, hostile; pref. in- not + amicus friendly. See Amity.] 1. Having the disposition or temper of an enemy; unfriendly; unfavorable; -- chiefly applied to private, as hostile is to public, enmity. 2. Opposed in tendency, influence, or effects; antagonistic; inconsistent; incompatible; adverse; repugnant. We are at war with a system, which, by its essence, is inimical to all other governments. --Burke. Perhaps he meant "intrinsic", or "integral" -- although I rather like the version with the typo myself... :-) MJ

1 0

SAFE Bill is a Good Thing--"Crypto For The Masses"
by Alan Davidson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The SAFE encryption bill would put more non-escrow, strong encryption in the hands of many more people -- and mark the death knell for government regulation of encryption. That's why CDT supports it. That's why we hope that people who care about privacy and security online will support it too. 1. The SAFE Bill Will Bring More Strong Crypto To More People There is a right we don't have now: The right to export strong cryptography. The result is that strong, easy-to-use encryption is not seamlessly integrated into most popular products, and is not accessible to most people (who are not as technically sophisticated as the members of this list.) SAFE would legalize the export (to all but a few countries such as Iran, N. Korea, and Cuba) of non-escrow encryption *of unlimited strength* that is designed for the mass market or is in the public domain, i.e.: "(i) that is generally available, as is, and is designed for installation by the purchaser; or "(ii) that is in the public domain for which copyright or other protection is not available under title 17, United States Code, or that is available to the public because it is generally accessible to the interested public in any form;" (See also Footnote below) Translation: If it's sold in Egghead Software, it's exportable. If it's available on the Web: exportable. PGP: exportable. 3DES, IDEA, or Blowfish in mass-market products or public domain toolkits: Exportable. Exportable. Exportable. So the export control provisions in SAFE would put a lot more strong crypto -- and the freedom to use it -- in the hands of a lot more people. SAFE's export control relief is not unlimited. The bill does not allow export to Iran, Iraq, Cuba, or N. Korea (that's what the "Trading With The Enemy" provision is about); Congress is not likely to pass a law saying you can export strong crypto to Saddam Hussein. Relief is also limited for non-mass-market hardware and software (e.g., custom systems not available to the public). Non-mass-market hardware is exportable if "commercially available" in the destination country; such software is exportable according to a hard-to-parse "financial institutions" standard that roughly translates into DES. Less than ideal -- but these provisions do not apply to most of the hardware and software that most people use. What SAFE does legalize is strong, non-escrow encryption in the products that are most widely used, in almost all countries worldwide. Once *ordinary people* have strong crypto built in to the products they use every day, it will be much harder for governments to take it away or restrict it. SAFE is "strong crypto for the masses." SAFE is a huge step forward. 2. CDT Does Not Support The Criminal Provision in SAFE CDT is actively working to get the criminal provision taken out of the SAFE bill. We are not alone: CDT signed a letter with other groups including EPIC, EFF, ACLU, VTW, PGP, IEEE, and ACM, urging Congress to remove the provisions -- "while expressing our support for the measure." Contrary to reports, the SAFE bill does not say: "Use a cipher, go to prison." It does say: "Use cryptography TO COMMIT A CRIME, go to prison": 2805. Unlawful use of encryption in furtherance of a criminal act "Any person who willfully uses encryption in furtherance of the commission of a criminal offense for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of competent jurisdiction... [may be imprisoned or fined]" The Leahy bill version is narrower. It says: "Use cryptography to willfully obstruct justice in furtherance of a felony, go to prison." "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, impede, or prevent the communication to an investigative or law enforcement officer of information in furtherance of a felony that may be prosecuted in a court of the United States shall...[may be imprisoned or fined]" CDT opposes both these provisions because they are unnecessary and could chill the use of encryption (especially by self-confessed felons like Tim May!). But they are not as sweeping as some on this list have said. On balance, CDT believes that SAFE's giant step forward of export relief and prohibitions on Executive Branch key escrow controls outweigh the problems created by these criminal provision. That is why we will fight to get criminal provisions removed, while we still support the bill. Passage of the SAFE Bill would put strong security tools in the hands of many more people. That's why CDT supports SAFE, and why we think people who care about privacy and security online should support it too. -- Alan Davidson, CDT FOOTNOTE: The Export Provisions in SAFE The export control provisions in SAFE differentiate between so-called mass-market and non-mass-market hardware and software. Mass-market software and hardware with non-escrow encryption of *unlimited strength* may be exported under the Act to all but a few countries (such as Iran, N. Korea, and Cuba): (2) ITEMS NOT REQUIRING LICENSES. -- No validated license may be required, except pursuant to the Trading With the Enemy Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (but only to the extent that the authority of such Act is not exercised to extend controls imposed under this Act), for the export or reexport of-- "(A) any software, including software with encryption capabilities -- "(i) that is generally available, as is, and is designed for installation by the purchaser; or "(ii) that is in the public domain for which copyright or other protection is not available under title 17, United States Code, or that is available to the public because it is generally accessible to the interested public in any form; or "(B) any computing device solely because it incorporates or employs in any form software (including software with encryption capabilities) exempted from any - requirement for a validated license under subparagraph (A). [See http://www.cdt.org/crypto/legis_105/SAFE/hr695_text.html for the Bill's definitions of "generally available," "as is", etc.] Non-mass-market hardware and software -- suach as code not generally available to the public via the Internet, or custom implementations not generally available or sold "as is" -- receive less favorable treatment: "(3) SOFTWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILITIES. -- The Secretary shall authorize the export or reexport of software with encryption capabilities for nonmilitary end-uses in any country to which exports of software of similar capability are permitted for use by financial institutions not controlled in fact by United States persons, unless there is substantial evidence that such software will be -- "(A) diverted to a military end-use or an end-use supporting international terrorism; "(B) modified for military or terrorist end-use; or "(C) reexported without any authorization by the United States that may be required under this Act. This "financial institutions" standard is supposed to roughly translate into DES. "(4) HARDWARE WITH ENCRYPTION CAPABILITIES. -- The Secretary shall authorize the export or reexport of computer hardware with encryption capabilities if the Secretary determines that a product offering comparable security is commercially available outside the United States from a foreign supplier, without effective restrictions. So non-mass-market hardware can be exported *with any encryption algorithm* if a "comparable" product is available outside the U.S. from a foreign supplier without restriction.

4 3

counterTCM post
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

in the continuing series of counterTCMeme posts, I would like to address a recent TCMeme on the subject of government. TCM asserts that the president and congress have absolutely nothing to offer american citizens, that any attempt to deal with them is a total waste of time. I generally agree that our democratic system has degenerated over the decades, to the point of being scary and dangerous in places. however, we can ask, why did it get to that point? I believe it is not because of an inherent impracticality of the government or congress. rather, it is a failure of the citizens to maintain the authority over their congressmen and president. once upon a time, citizens saw congress and the president as their servants. it led to a particular kind of ideology reflected in the policies of the country. over time, people gradually gave away this authority. they saw the president and congress as having authority over citizens, instead of vice versa. TCM's idea of telling congress and the president to f*** off is actually, in my opinion, an extreme case of people giving away their authority. it is more of the same problem, not the solution. it is failing to address the root of the problem-- that the president and congress must be put in a subservient relationship to the desires of the citizens. citizens are failing to exercise their ability to remove and replace those in power. TCM quotes De ToqueVille, "the american experiment in democracy will last until people begin to realize they can pick each other's pockets at the voting booth". there is a fallacy and a truth in this at the same time. the truth is that the citizenry is beginning to discover that the government is the greatest pickpocket of all. if it redistributed its wealth, our economy would be better off. but instead the government ties up vast amounts of wealth into (1) social programs that redistribute only a fraction of the wealth they take in, the rest caught up in bureacracy (2) weaponry that sits idle, and is so horrific that it should never be used, and (3) a national debt of borrowed money. so people are no longer trying to pick each other's pockets at the voting booth, in my opinion, but realizing that the government itself is picking everyone's pockets at tax time. everyone who pays money via taxes to the government is the employer of those in government. when was the last time you exercised some control over this money? or do you just sign it off? there are many ways that individual citizens can create leverage over their government, and increase their power over it. it is the opposite of the process by which they have given their power away. it is reversable. but to unplug oneself from the monster one has created is not possible as TCM is always campaigning. the monster will run around some more. one must uncreate the monster in the same ways it was created. I commend CDT and all other online groups for their organizational motives and drive, and condemn TCM for his pissing on them. what is he doing? he is just unplugging himself and asserting that the monster will no longer exist if he refuses to believe in it. the road to greater power is greater organization and unity while preserving individuality. the individualism that TCM promotes is actually ultimately disempowering and dangerous. the individual has no power. the solution to an oppressive society is to fix the society, not to try to find increasingly ingenious ways of hiding from it. the society will always has means of becoming more orwellian and surmounting whatever obstacles individuals place in it. if something is broken, do you fix it, or abandon it? or shoot it? TCM is always advocating the latter two. it's not a solution, and he knows it, and everyone else here knows it too.

1 0

INFO: SAFE pro-encryption bill passes first Congressional hurdle (5/1/1997)
by Shabbir J. Safdar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

============================================================================= ____ _ _ _ / ___|_ __ _ _ _ __ | |_ ___ | \ | | _____ _____ | | | '__| | | | '_ \| __/ _ \ _____| \| |/ _ \ \ /\ / / __| | |___| | | |_| | |_) | || (_) |_____| |\ | __/\ V V /\__ \ \____|_| \__, | .__/ \__\___/ |_| \_|\___| \_/\_/ |___/ |___/|_| PRO-ENCRYPTION BILL CLEARS FIRST CONGRESSIONAL HURDLE. FACES TOUGHER TEST IN COMING WEEKS. SAFE BILL IS ASSAILED BY CLINTON WHITE HOUSE BECAUSE IT PROHIBITS EXPANDED EAVESDROPPING CAPABILITIES Date: May 1, 1997 Expires June 1, 1997 URL:http://www.crypto.com/ crypto-news(a)panix.com Redistribution of crypto-news is allowed in its entirety. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents What Just Happened What YOU CAN DO NOW! How to start or stop receiving crypto-news Press contacts ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT JUST HAPPENED On Wednesday April 30, 1997, Congress took a historic first step towards real reform of US encryption policy and promoting the availability of strong privacy protections for Internet users. The House Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual property, by a unanimous vote, approved the Security and Freedom through Encryption (SAFE) Act (HR 695). The bill will be considered by the full House Judiciary Committee in mid-May where it is expected to face tough opposition, The SAFE bill, sponsored by Reps. Bob Goodlatee (R-VA) and Anna Eshoo (D-CA) currently has 78 congressional co-sponsors, including a majority of the House Judiciary Committee. The bill seeks to protect privacy and promote electronic commerce by liberalizing the export of privacy-enhancing encryption technology and prohibiting the the government from imposing mandatory key-escrow or key-recovery systems. The bill also contains a controversial provision which establishes new criminal penalties for the use of encryption in the furtherance of a felony. Privacy groups have expressed concern about this provision. During Wednesday's subcommittee vote, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) pledged to work with privacy groups and the bill's sponsors to address these concerns. The Clinton Administration is unhappy with the bill, claiming it will thwart law enforcement and undermine the administration's efforts to impose a global "key-recovery" infrastructure. In an April 30 letter to the Courts and Intellectual Property Subcommittee chair Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC), the Department of Justice said: "The bill could be read as prohibiting the United States government from using appropriate incentives to support a key management infrastructure and KEY RECOVERY." [emphasis added] The Administration's "Key Recovery" program creates a backdoor in encryption that would allow third parties to eavesdrop on individual's private conversations without their permission or knowledge. Because of the Administration's opposition, the SAFE bill is expected to face a much tougher fight before the full House Judiciary Committee later this month. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW The SAFE bill (HR695) is approaching the full committee for markup. Your help is needed in calling members of the House Judiciary committee to urge them to pass legislation. This is a critical issue to the future of the Internet as a secure and trusted means of education, commerce, and political discourse, but it will not happen without your help. Please take a moment to Adopt Your Legislator and let them know that you support efforts to refrom US encryption policy in a way that protects privacy, promotes electronic commerce, and recognizes the realities of the global Internet. Visit http://www.crypto.com/adopt/ For more information about the bill, go to http://www.crypto.com/safe_bill/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOW TO START OR STOP RECEIVING CRYPTO-NEWS To subscribe to crypto-news, sign up from our WWW page (http://www.crypto.com) or send mail to majordomo(a)panix.com with "subscribe crypto-news" in the body of the message. To unsubscribe, send a letter to majordomo(a)panix.com with "unsubscribe crypto-news" in the body. Requests to unsubscribe that are sent to shabbir(a)vtw.org will be ignored. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESS CONTACT INFORMATION Press inquiries on Crypto-News should be directed to Shabbir J. Safdar (VTW) at +1.718.596.2851 or shabbir(a)vtw.org Jonah Seiger (CDT) at +1.202.637.9800 or jseiger(a)cdt.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- End crypto-news =============================================================================

1 0

EAR questions.
by das＠razor.engr.sgi.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ Didn't get much response when I posted this to cryptography(a)c2.net. Hope there will be more response on cypherpunks. ] I couldn't find a solid answer to the following questions, after reading relevent sections of the EAR, and talking to some people. I am looking for considered opinions, not legal advice. 1) Does a software such as the DESCHALL client or Peter Trei's DESKR program, in object code form, need a license to be exported? Keep in mind that even thought there are some cryptographic functions inside the programs, they cannot be directly used to encrypt data, nor can they be easily modified (i.e. without reverse engineering) to make data encryption possible. 2) Does the "printed matter exception" apply only to publications? Is it legal, under the EAR, for somebody in the US to print out the source code for an encryption program on paper and send it to a private party abroad (not a country in the enemies list). Does it make any difference whether this is done for monetory compensation? Does it make any difference whether the sender intends to keep the source code secret between himself and the recipient? Btw, it looks like the language about scannable encryption source code, that was in the draft regulations, have been removed. One more, general question. 3) Is it correct to say that, as long as you are not selling it to a military organization and the software is intended for civilian use, the export of encryption software is now controlled exclusively by the EAR, and not by the ITAR? I ask this because many of the people who answered "only publications" to question 2) above, could only quote the ITAR in support of their position. Thanks. -- Anil Das

1 0