December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

The Ethics of Electronic Information
by Les Pourciau at UMem 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

******WITH ALL APOLOGIES FOR POSTING TO MULTIPLE LISTS,****** ******PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY****** THE ETHICS OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION IN THE 21st CENTURY September 26-28, 1997 Sponsored By: The University of Memphis Libraries The U of M Information systems The U of M Linder Center for Urban Journalism The U of M Division of Research and Graduate School The U of M Marcus Orr Center for the Humanities The U of M Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law The U of M Fogelman College of Business and Economics CONFERENCE VENUE Fogelman Executive Center, The University of Memphis, Memphis TN, U.S.A. http://www.people.memphis.edu/~operations/fec_list.htmlx Additional Memphis Web Site: http://www.memphistravel.com THE ELECTRONIC INFORMATION ISSUE Recently historian Neil Postman warned against the naive belief that information is "an unmixed blessing, which through its continued and uncontrolled production and dissemination offers increased freedom, creativity, and peace of mind" (1992, p. 71*). Indeed, information and information technology raise a host of difficult issues: Who will be authorized to have access to the plethora of information that is generated by computers in the 21st century? Will privacy, that most revered of American values, be passe, given the power of computers and the invasiveness of information bureaucracy and technology? Will the possession of information mean riches for the possessors, and will those possessors of information inevitably be the rich nations and neighborhoods of the earth? Who will own information, and who will be barred from access to information? How will copyright be administered on the Internet? These are only a few of the myriad of questions and concerns that occur to practitioners in a variety of professional fields. *Neil Postman, 1992. TECHNOPOLY: THE SURRENDER OF CULTURE TO TECHNOLOGY, New York, Vintage Books, 1992. CALL FOR PAPERS The Symposium Planning Committee seeks original research and application oriented papers, not previously presented elsewhere, which address questions about ethical considerations attendant to the forthcoming Information Age. You are invited to submit an abstract of a proposed paper for consideration by the Review Committee. Alternative modes of presentation, e.g., panel discussions, case studies, will be considered. The deadline for receipt of proposals is April 25, 1997. The following guidelines should be observed in the preparation and submission of your abstracts: 1. The abstract should be a precis of your paper and should be between 1000 and 1,500 words in length. 2. The heading should include the title of your paper, followed by the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the author(s), and the name, address, FAX number, and email address of the author who will present the paper at the Symposium. 3. Acceptance or otherwise will be at the discretion of the Symposium Planning Committee. The presenting author will be notified of the Committee decision no later than May 9, 1997. 4. Upon acceptance of abstracts, authors will be required to forward, no later than August 1, 1997, a copy of their papers as an ASCII file, or a URL which can linked to the Symposium site. 5. Abstracts should be sent to: Dr. Lester J. Pourciau Director of Libraries and Executive Chair, EEI Planning Committee McWherter Library 203 The University of Memphis Campus Box 526500 Memphis, TN 38152-6500 Email: pourciau(a)cc.memphis.edu CONTACT FOR GENERAL INFORMATION: Mr. Tom Mendina Assistant to the Director The University of Memphis Libraries Phone: 901/678-4310 Fax: 901/678-8218 E-mail: tmendina(a)cc.memphis.edu LODGING Fogelman Executive Center Hotel $65 for one person; $10 per additional person 901/678-5410 Ridgeway Inn $76 for one person Complimentary airport shuttle 901/766-4000 REGISTRATION To register for symposium attendance only or paper presentations, complete the form BELOW and mail it for receipt no later than August 30, 1997 to: THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS P.O. BOX 1000, DEPT. 313 MEMPHIS TN 38148-0313 U.S.A. ----DETACH-------DETACH-------DETACH-------DETACH-------DETACH------DETACH----- THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS SYMPOSIUM ON THE ETHICS OF ELECTRONIC INFORMATION IN THE 21st CENTURY September 26-28, 1997 FOGELMAN EXECUTIVE CENTER THE UNIVERSITY OF MEMPHIS REGISTRATION FORM Make checks payable to: The University of Memphis FAX NUMBER 901-678-2272 For VISA/MASTERCARD/DISCOVER Card number____________________________________ Expiration Date_________________________________ Signature of cardholder_________________________ FEES (includes breakfasts, lunches, and Friday evening cocktails and banquet) Attendance only: $150 Presenters: $100 Students $50 Late Fee: $50 added to any remittance after August 30, 1997 NAME_______________________________________________________________ ADDRESS____________________________________________________________ CITY_______________________________________________________________ STATE__________________________________________ZIP_________________ COUNTRY____________________________________________________________ ORGANIZATION/AFFILIATION___________________________________________ POSITION/TITLE_____________________________________________________ TELEPHONE__________________________________________________________ FAX________________________________________________________________ E-MAIL_____________________________________________________________ Receipt #_______________(for UofM Office use only)

1 0

Re: FCC to take control of the Net? Domain names and addresses...
by Toto 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Rich Graves wrote: > >NSF... FNC-AC... IANA... ARIN... IP... NSI... IAHC... RIPE... FCC... > > There was a W3C IP BOF at WWW6 wherein this stuff was discussed. > JM said they'd have a POV PDQ. Suggest you check out the WG WWW > page ASAP. BT, DT. -- Toto "The Xenix Chainsaw Massacre" http://bureau42.base.org/public/xenix/xenbody.html

1 0

What's good for the goose...
by Chris DiBona 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello all... I was thinking about some things....like many other people, I really dislike junk email. How they get email addresses to send to is no mystery. So here's the idea. We've started seeing people change their email return addresses so that they can avoid spam. I've got a better idea. Make your return address "wallace(a)cyberpromo.com" , that's right... Good old spamford wallaces email address needs a little traffic. You'll want to change your SIG so that people don't freak out on you. IN FACT, and although I WOULD never RECCOMMEND THIS. (notice the enunciation...'nuf said) I would be tempted, if I had the time of course, to subscribe the freak to as many lists as I could find, but of course I would never do such a thing, as that might at the very least make his communication links kind of active, bringing up the price of doing business for him. Just a little idea.... Chris DiBona PS: Of course I would never do such a thing myself. This is information and ideas provided for your entertainment only...uh huh...that's right...for sure ;-)

3 2

URGENT
by cm＠subcellar.mwci.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello; "My research indicates the following material is of interest to you. If you prefer not to be on this mailing list, please let us know, and you will be promptly removed." I am on a mission, no I'm on a CRUSADE to educate people that there are no "GET RICH QUICK" programs, only honest or dishonest opportunities. There are also, no "Miracle Products" or "Cure All Products". Remember, what you see isn't always what you get. Anything that has the potential to be a money-earner will take some work, and sometimes alot of work. I (Christopher Miller) started this Company with the belief that it shouldn't be necessary for you to spend a fortune to be healthy and feel good. Also, I believe that there are far too many companies that offer Business Opportunities only to end up draining the Distributors bank account instead of filling it. There are also many deceptive trade practices taking place everyday where Con-Artists take advantage of unsuspecting people. Our products are very competitively priced and Distributorships are very inexpensive to operate. Cosmic Enterprises, a world leader in manufacturing quality nutritional products. With its headquarters located in Iowa, La., Cosmic Enterprises has Independant Representatives in the U.S., Indonesia and the United Kingdom. President Christopher Miller who is the founder, started his Nutritional career working from home in his spare time, doing research on his own value packed Nutritional Energy Formula. This energy product is the result many months of research, shopping and testing. I was searching for a product that would satisfy the need for sustained energy levels, increased mental alertness, balanced blood pressure and blood sugar levels along with antioxidant prtection and improved hormone activity. Not finding one, I started on a quest to find a manufacturing company that would want to do things my way. After many months of searching and negotiations the result of my quest was born. I called the formula Renew because it does so many things. It literally enhances every one of the body processes and functions. If all this sounds too good to be true, it's because we have been programmed by large corporations all these years to beleive that the things we need to healthy are very very expensive. In fact, just the opposite is true. We at Cosmic Enterprises have gone to great lenghts to provide our customers with he most value-packed product that has ever been placed on the market. The pharmacalogical make up of Renew has been very well researched to ensure the synergistic properties of the ingredients were not sacrificed. The majority of products on the market are made up of a single ingredient and the rest of it is composed of fillers. Just to give you an idea of how much filler material weve consumed over the years, listen to this example. Renew is packed in a "00" {double ought} capsule which can hold from 850 milligrams up to well over 1000 milligrams of material depending upon the molecular weight of the individual ingredients, most single ingredient products that are available in capsule form use a "0" {single ought} capsule which can hold up to 550 milligrams of material or possibly much more depending on the weight. Now lets say that this product has 25 milligrams of active ingredient, then why is the pill so big? It doesnt take a mathematician to figure out that most of your money just went toward fillers instead of what you thought you were getting. Also, many of these products come in tablet form, which means that they are capable of holding much more because the pill press compresses the ingredients. So even though the tablet or caplet may be large, that doesnt mean theres alot of active ingredients. There are, however, many multible ingredient products out there, some of them are very good I might add. The truth is though, many products only use one or two main ingredients and trivial amounts (sometimes reffered to as window dressings) for the remainder of the ingredients. The purpose here is not to hold any particular company in judgement, but to demonstrate the difference between Renew and many of the products being bought by millions of unsuspecting people every day. Renew contains less than 100 milligrams (approximately) of fillers and each ingredient in Renew is, according to the most recent research studies, present in effective dosage levels . . . Not just window dressings. That means that in that "00" {double ought} capsule that is capable of holding up to 1000+ milligrams of material contains less than 100 milligrams of filler. There is over 1100 milligrams of active ingredients in Renew. Furthermore, if there are other products that can make this statement, I would like to see that people can still get a good deal. The kind of deal where you really get what you paid for. ########################################################## For More Information Contact: Chris Miller (318) 588 - 4473 cosmic(a)info.mwci.net ##########################################################

1 0

Meeting Report: "Developing the Advanced Encryption Standard"
by Bruce Schneier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Meeting Report: "Developing the Advanced Encryption Standard" Workshop 15 April 1997 by Bruce Schneier NIST held a workshop to discuss the proposed Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) today. About 70 people, from government and industry, attended. Specifically, the workshop was convened to discuss the minimum acceptability requirements, evaluation criteria, and submission requirements for the AES. First my report, and then some opinion. Miles Smid presented NIST's goals for AES. They wanted a strong encryption block encryption algorithm for government and commercial use, one that would support "standard codebook modes" of encryption, "significantly more efficient than triple DES," and with a variable key size. Smid then summarized the comments and their proposed responses. Thirty-three comments (via paper and e-mail) were received in response to the 2 January 1997 Federal Register. These comments were all distributed at the workshop. Responses to comments on the "Minimum Acceptability Requirements and Evaluation Criteria." (Please note that these responses are only "proposed responses," and are not the official responses of NIST.) 1. NIST agrees that all unclassified analyses will be made public, and encourages that the mathematical rationale behind algorithms be presented along with the algorithms. 2. NIST prefers a block cipher to a stream cipher because it would be compatible with DES, and because existing standards specify block modes. Still, they are open to a discussion on stream ciphers. (They got a lot of discussion, but seemed to ignore it.) They are also open to block sizes larger than 64 bits. (The general consensus was 128 bits.) They would prefer to have a single algorithm in AES, as opposed to a family of algorithms (this prompted discussion as well). 3. NIST is open to a discussion on key length: whether it should be a single large keylength or a variable keylength. NIST also "intends to recognize triple-DES when it becomes an ANSI standard." NIST wants the AES to offer significant advantages over triple-DES. (They said this over and over. Their opinion was that if the process just recognized triple-DES, then it wasn't really worth bothering.) 4. NIST pointed out that requiring both hardware and software implementations precluded the submission of algorithms that could be implemented only in hardware. (Remember the security restrictions imposed on Skipjack.) 5. Regarding patent-free implementations, NIST strongly prefers a royalty-free world-wide implementation. They will accept patented algorithms, but will heavily favor royalty-free algorithms. 6. Comments on the judging criteria: Regarding security, NIST strongly encourages a public explanation of the rationale behind any constants or tables, and a statement of the work factor required to attack the algorithm; they will judge all attacks below the work factor for practicality. Regarding computational efficiency, NIST will favor efficiency on 32-bit processors and short key-setup time, will test efficiency on a little endian processor, and will publish the specs of the test system. They also encourage two submissions: reference (possibly in Java) and optimized (in C). Regarding memory requirements, NIST will measure memory requirements for C implementation on a single reference platform (presumably a Pentium Pro), although submitters are welcome to provide results for other platforms. Regarding hardware and software suitability, NIST believes that the primary applications for the AES are for large processors (although they would "value" flexibility to run on 8-bit processors), and do not believe that they can require hardware gate-count values from submission. Regarding simplicity, NIST intends to evaluate algorithms on their simplicity of design (is there a rationale, or is the algorithm just a hodge-podge?) and implementation. Regarding flexibility, NIST received many conflicting comments on the value of flexibility versus the value of fixing parameters. NIST intends to evaluate algorithms on their ability to implement on differing platforms for various applications. They will consider defining a standard interface for testing. Regarding variant algorithms, they worry about the difficulty of analysis and the loss of compatibility; they assume the number of rounds would be fixed for any given key size. 7. NIST agrees that AES will be used for 20-30 years, that security is more important than efficiency or flexibility, and that efficiency is of equal importance to flexibility. They have no control over export control laws, and will comply with any export control laws. The design should be for a strong algorithm, regardless of the legal climate. NIST reiterated that the AES should be at least as secure as triple-DES. Jim Foti provided proposed responses to comments on the "Proposed Draft Submission Requirements." NIST will specify block and key sizes, and will encourage submitters to include design rationale. They will ask for a reference implementation as well as an optimized implementation (suitable for a IBM-compatible Pentium PC running Windows 95 with 16MB of RAM). They will ask for efficiency estimates for various platforms, including bytes/sec for encryption, decryption, and key setup, as well as gate counts and memory requirements for hardware implementations. They would like a graph with a plot of speed versus memory. They will require a suite of test vectors to ensure all implementations of the algorithm are correct, and a statement regarding possible patent issues (legal issues may be appropriate). They will require a list of any known weak or equivalent keys, complementation properties, etc., a mathematical rationale for any items that could hide a trap door, and a reference list of any publications that discuss cryptanalysis of the algorithm. NIST will not accept proprietary submissions (with the possible exception of the optimized implementation). The submitter must agree to waive copyright on submitted materials (again, with the possible exception of the optimized implementation). And the submitter must provide a statement of expected strength of the algorithm, with supporting rationale. Of course submissions from outside the U.S. would be welcome. Ed Roback discussed the selection process. We've had the draft criteria and submission requirements (1/2/97), the public comment process (closed on 4/2/97), and the workshop on criteria and submission requirements (today). NIST estimates that it will take three months to prepare a public call for submissions, which they will publish in the Federal Register. The call for submissions would be closed after four to six months. Then, they would take about two months to review submissions for completeness and correctness (not security), and then they would publish everything and invite the public to review and analyze the algorithms. There would be some workshop early on in the process where the submitters could campaign for their particular algorithm. After about 6 months, though would be an interim workshop where people could comment on the algorithms. (NIST doesn't plan on funding cryptanalysis, or offering prizes our bounties for successful cryptanalysis.) NIST would think about this for a while (three months), and would then publish a list of narrowed candidates (exactly how narrowed is unknown). After another six to nine months of public comments, there would be a final workshop. Then, NIST would review everything (about two months) and publish a draft FIPS. Another three months for comments on the draft FIPS, a month to revise the draft, and then the Secretary of Commerce approves the FIPS. Times are approximate (of course), but NIST expects the process to take "well over two years." It was pretty much universally thought that this schedule is wildly optimistic. NIST doesn't know if this algorithm will be a replacement for DES, or an alternative to DES with higher security. With DES and triple-DES so entrenched, it will be impossible to migrate to AES quickly. (Remember that the NIST standard only applies to U.S. Government systems, although they are often used in broader contexts.) Discussion followed. All the pre-lunch arguments were about block and key size. Block sizes of 64 bits and 80 bits were quickly eliminated, as was a 64-bit keysize. People wanted variable keysizes of some subset of 128, 192, 256, or even 512 bits, and block sizes of either 128 bits or 128 and 256 bits. There was no discussion of stream ciphers, or using block ciphers as hash functions. NIST has a hard time figuring out how to measure hardware efficiency. They'd like to have definitive metrics (like there will be for software) but are unwilling to force submitters to provide VHDL code, or gate counts, or whatever. NIST talked about what to do about "tweaking" algorithms after submission. What if a break is found, but a simple fix prevents the attack? What if someone submits an algorithm and someone else proposes a tweak? These questions were not answered. They also debated whether or not the optimized implementation of the algorithm could be proprietary. Pros are that it encourages clever implementations, and implementations from people other than the inventor. Cons are that it withholds information from the public, and that it doesn't allow independent verification of proprietary implementations. One halfway proposal was to make optimized implementations public, but allow owners to retain copyright. The audience seemed to prefer that optimized implementations be kept secret by NIST. There were further discussions on the legal issues. When do the inventors give up their rights to the algorithm? What rights, exactly, do they give up? What about patents that an inventor might unknowingly infringe upon? What is an inventor submits an algorithm and then, a year and a half later, tries to pull it out of the process? It was almost universally agreed that these are hard questions. And in a final show of hands, ten people admitted that they were "thinking of submitting an algorithm." Editorialization time.... Before I showed up, the major question in my mind was whether this was a serious attempt to develop a secure encryption algorithm to replace DES, or just another red herring by the government to keep us busy while they go on eavesdropping. Now I believe that the NIST representatives at the meeting are sincere, but I still don't know how they fit in a larger context This is serious business. Any algorithm proposed in 1997 won't be approved until at least 2000. It will be a standard for 20-30 years, in legacy systems for at least another ten, securing data that might need to be secured for another 20. This means we are trying to estimate security in the year 2060. I can't estimate security ten years from now, let alone 60. The only wise option is to be very conservative. I'm not sure that NIST knows what it wants. Technically, a FIPS is only for government use, but NIST would like everyone to use it. Communities like banking are likely to adopt a FIPS right out of the box; other organizations will view a U.S. Government standard with suspicion. Still, NIST needs to decide if they want this AES to be all things to all people, or a specific encryption algorithm to satisfy a specific set of requirements. Everyone in the audience had different ideas about this. The audience was a mix of government agents, corporate representatives, academics, and random yahoos. Of course, the random yahoos talked for more than their share. My worry is that NIST will get many more submissions than they bargained for; I think that every random yahoo is going to submit his pet algorithm. NIST hopes the community will be able to quickly separate the random stupid algorithms from the serious submissions, but I am less sure that politics will allow NIST to. Assuming a 128-bit block requirement doesn't preclude everything already done, I urge companies with patented or patent-pending algorithms to give up royalties and submit their algorithms. I assume CAST (royalty-free from Northern Telcom), SAFER (royalty free from Cylink), Blowfish (unpatented), and Square (unpatented) will be submitted; I would also like to see RC5 from RSADSI, IDEA from Ascom-Systec, and Khufu from Xerox. Failing that, I would like to see new submissions out of the various cryptographic research institutions. The yahoos are going to submit regardless; we need at least a small pile of quality algorithms. But is there enough time for people to invent strong 128-bit block ciphers? Probably not. One alternative is to take existing 64-bit block ciphers, and then use a 4-round Luby-Rackoff construction to create a 128-bit block variant. Another is to give people more time. Both were talked about. I would like them to approve triple-DES as an interim standard, and then take all the time they need for a secure 128-bit block cipher. So now we wait for the call for submissions. /s/ Bruce Schneier ************************************************************************ * Bruce Schneier 2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,002,000, * Counterpane Systems 000,000,000,000,000,000,002,000,000,002,293 * schneier(a)counterpane.com The last prime number...alphabetically! * (612) 823-1098 Two vigintillion, two undecillion, two * 101 E Minnehaha Pkwy trillion, two thousand, two hundred and * Minneapolis, MN 55419 ninety three. * http://www.counterpane.com ************************************************************************

1 0

Re: Internet Free Europe
by 3umoelle＠informatik.uni-hamburg.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://nanjing.spc.uchicago.edu:8001/ is a proxy directed against Chinese internet censorship. It comes with Unix sources.

1 1

FORBES on Phil Zimmermann and PGP
by Jim Saxman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- A decent non-technical article... >By making a martyr of programmer Philip Zimmermann, >the feds gave a giant boost to his encryption software. > > Banned in Washington > By Scott Woolley >http://www.forbes.com/forbes/97/0421/5908162a.htm Also, these appear to be prevous articles in FORBES >Can you get rich off a 232-year-old mathematical >equation? Some entrepreneurs specializing in computer >encryption are going to tryif they can stop squabbling >long enough to divide the spoils. > > Patented secrecy > By Simson L. Garfinkel >http://www.forbes.com/extra/special1.htm and >Are you worried that a Nosey Parker, a competitor a >G-man could pry into your computerized files? Check out >this encryption software. > > How to keep a secret > By Susan Adams >http://www.forbes.com/extra/5707108a.htm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBM1Q9Qvby2L5eXWRpAQE1fAQAmBKQ0yS8FOIEepWzNzzROYpsvLuAimQ1 luzyjv+e6wlxoYGpsMaxJebpGfrQPms1vP63AoJj6tprlBVayjrhj4bF3PJoRneD zGIkshuBGGw7jcZ3XsWKReb/7q0JiaNz0BMwUIrE+j/+jGAdjbzmE95Mbxkt0nlV CVR9gF5by1E= =eKIw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Jim Saxman jesaxman(a)eos.ncsu.edu PGP KeyID: 5E5D6469

1 0

xs4all.nl
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The DFN - science network in Germany has blocked access to the dutch xs4all.nl server after an order of the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), the german FBI. Users of DFN have confirmed that today. If somebody wants to follow up on it, the public relation office of DFN can be reached at (49) 030 - 884-29942 (Miss Quandel). Ciao Harka -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBM1MgGTltEBIEF0MBAQHUkAf+LUKqgm6dz7jhKQtrJPZsHk6PSZyGnK43 1xHprmRfk9yAuyKiXIPbkyEmM97h0Yczhv70ngGFVtRogm/LaGN0IiA33OY8GXVi sdmKG5u9kDt3fagWxglrw3xTKeff9orwUdUUVJfWG2mmNxtG3DkDCIxlEIRM1sP+ ML3N1KayyRkZLwBVu/kpI+8I3dswYTApTs9GnBTRGssdXbitBWTBsXvRREPpTufO WEAXdwvZQf8Cr4PGco/dtvyiVE+wZhOUblpcpEqBVkLJp+pmRxxg8GcUu7FEANKi FqehcaPpQnwsHmY9ujFEUJaiwa3XxVDUBRVt+FHAO3/JkmqkL12dpA== =8wdj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

4 3

Re: Introducing newbies t
by harka＠nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I've just written a brief installation guide for PGP called "PGPSteps". It's not meant to compete with any of the FAQ's but rather intended to be a short and easy reference for DOS/Windows users, who want to install PGP. If you are interested in a copy, please reply privately... Comments are very welcome as well. Ciao Harka -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAgUBM1MgbjltEBIEF0MBAQF55Af/U2EhGXlGqqaWgMATDw6xAolORC/iuvFR UoQAEX8bw1siwm1txR74xbhTc6N2BgVJy1hxMA57B90gKOkOpjW9eax/4X6Psh4d X88te2Cy5f2ltvqecSrCIrKAkf4CTk1RUZYj0MnreKRZXlmlWCTb0gH8lT1Ns1KJ RhhquJoUYmXP0A1uSVGhOyGCVijlny/V8mM06qeIBPnWbP9Pv6CWim/RSzTuDFL8 O3GOcZS7+UiZ/P0o09a6HOo7dwutMKNe64PMwZrR6yZSTMRlWTYR76g7fqlU5T4t rdGE2poxf0P6vK3xVz5OZKQzFR0NvEgDlfoR/GbplpgeTBRNLeMfQQ== =iwVf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If encryption is outlawed, only outlaws will have encryption...

1 0

WebWorld 33-34
by Bubba Rom Dos 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0