December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: Jim Bell in the Oregonian
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:09 5/06/97 -0700, Alan wrote: > >Jim Bell has an editorial (with his picture) in the Oregonian. (Morning >edition, May 6th, 1997 page B-9.) It takes up about a quarter of the >page. > >It is an interesting read. It does not address the problems with AP, Given that the article was, more or less, limited to 800 words (it actually runs about 40 over this informal limit) it is by no means surprising that it "does not address the problems [sic] with AP." Why would you think it would?!? > but >it does deal with the raid and other issues involved. And I've already posted it, but it probably hadn't appeared to most CP subscribers, certainly not by the time you posted your note, and maybe not even when I post this note. > >Jim might consider posting a copy of the original article here. Given the >Oregano's love of cut-and-paste journalism, it would be interesting how >the original and print versions differ. I didn't seen any substantial changes to the body of the article, although my preferred title wasn't used. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

AP --> AR
by nobody＠huge.cajones.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim May verily saith [paraphrase]: > I would cry few tears if D.C. got nuked This will be an historical event of importance comparable to the American Revolution and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Even now Clinton and his organization are pointing weapons of mass terror and murder at hundreds of millions of people around the world, and other leaders of these gangs with weapons too murderous to be called gangs, these terrorists far too terrifying to the called terrorists, are pointing their weapons at us. Far from enemies, the supergang chieftans contribute to each others' campaigns, turning democracy into a sick joke. The fact of friendship between super-terrorist leaders does not stop them from threatening us with terror and death in the name of "defense" against "enemy nations", and by the most bizarre hypocrisy ever dreamed up by the mind of man, trampling our rights in the name of controlling "terrorism". The supreme justice will be done when these weapons of mass terror are turned back on their wielders and those proximate who have failed to use their proximity to bring these ultimate criminals to justice. Those innocents who die will be mourned as saviours for the many tens of millions who would have been murdered by governments in the twenty first century, as they have been in the twentieth. I live about one hundred-fifty miles away from that fetid place, sometimes downwind. The risk to my family from the fallout is fairly small compared to the risks we face every day from these super-terrorists pointing weapons at us, threatening us constantly, sometimes murdering us outright when they can cook up a good enough story to justify it on the evening news. The money I have to spend to protect my family from the fallout, and from any temporary economic setback to our region, would be earned back in less than a year of not having my livelihood sucked away by these mass murdering parasites, and the very lives of my beloved family, my lovely wife, my son and my two daughters, threatened by their thug friends and campaign contributors overseas. D.C. may lead the nation in personal crimes, but these are as nothing next to the crimes it has committed against the peoples of the rest of the nation and the world. These self-legalized criminals have in this administration alone murdered more children than Charles Manson killed adults. AP may be more targeted, but it just doesn't do the crimes justice. For that will come AR -- appropriate response. "John the Baptist"

2 1

Since when is supporting unrestricted crypto unreasonable?
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir(a)vtw.org> writes: > You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans for Tax > Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Professionals for > Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal > Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter. > > Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being > unreasonable? No. Perhaps we consider accepting the bill with such glaring loopholes unreasonable. > I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton > Administration. Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep? I'll let this remark stand on it's own merit. > Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living. > I'm glad to be counted among them. Interesting dismissal and point of view from an organization which is ostensibly a promoter of civil liberties. The trace of elitism in this quote is an irony that this reader didn't miss. "Democracy," indeed. It appears that in your daily study of this issue -- and I'm assuming that familiarity with Cypherpunks is part of that -- you missed some of the differences between many Cypherpunks and your organization(s). We all agree that unrestricted/unregulated Cryptography is a "good thing." However, the compromises ACLU, EPIC, EFF, CDT, etc. are willing to make with this bill do not further this ultimate goal. Unless the administration intends to simply ignore the obvious loopholes. There are also some philosophical differences. To quote Alan Davidson: > 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 Actually, the government doesn't have the right to impose restrictions on strong cryptography. Yet time and again, it has attempted to do so, resulting in -- as Alan noted -- a chilling effect on the spread of strong crypto in the mass market. And government will continue attempts to reach into regulation of crypto. This is why compromise is unacceptable. Far better to work around it attempting to spread cryptography far and wide while legislators and administrators struggle to slip their agenda past your watchful eyes. But there is another force at work here. There is no "killer" crypto app in the eyes of the masses. PGP 2.6xxxxx is probably the closest thing we currently have in this regard. Furthermore, crypto still remains largely below the public radar. While government officials can trot out the four horsemen with predictable reactions, the proverbial "other side" has few arguments that carry a similar impact. We can cite abuses, encroachment on civil liberties, increasing surveillance efforts, and numerous other frightening developments. None of these have broken into the mass conciousness in the same way that "protecting the children/public safety" arguments have. <Irony> Labels like "militia", "extreme edge" and "radical" also carry alot of weight in the increasingly paranoid public mind.</Irony> Until some outrageous surveillance or crypto related abuse occurs (cryptogate) or is uncovered , it will remain difficult to garner real mass public support. The Newt Gingrich cell-phone fiasco came as close as anything yet. Commercial interests "get it" & support crypto for wholly different reasons. I'm starting to think that until someone actually gets arrested and jailed for using strong, unbreakable encryption that is "suspected" of supporting a crime, little will change. In the meantime, the administration, Congress, and the TLA's will keep getting closer to achieving their goals.

1 0

None
by Jenaer Mixmaster Anonserver 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For your interest and amusement... London Daily Telegraph, 5/6/97 "French coders go on strike" France's 260 Foreign Ministry coders, who decipher top security messages, went on strike yesterday for the first time since their department was set up in the 1960s. The strike is over career status, the lack of recruits and the impact of new technologies. Talks are to be held tomorrow. AFP, Paris

1 0

Re: Controversial Commercial ISP for Remailer?
by Dave Hayes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Igor Chudov writes: > I am interested in your view, Dave. There are only two reasons that I can see your interest serving. You either wish to support my views or oppose them. Neither case serves your potential enlightement, therefore I shall choose to not answer. ------ Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - dave(a)jetcafe.org Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet Test (n.) - 1. A hardship you don't expect. Brave (adj.) - 1. Someone looking for a test.

2 1

Re: Controversial Commercial ISP for Remailer?
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dave Hayes wrote: > Igor Chudov writes: > > I am interested in your view, Dave. > > There are only two reasons that I can see your interest serving. > You either wish to support my views or oppose them. Neither case > serves your potential enlightement, therefore I shall choose to > not answer. Dave, you are a very insightful man, but in this case you were mistaken: I am interested to hear your views for my enlightenment. But your response above also serves my curiosity, no less than a more direct one, so thank you very much. - Igor.

1 0

The Executive State
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 10:46:19 -0700 From: thomasu(a)mail.auburn.edu To: misesmail(a)colossus.net Subject: The Executive State Sender: owner-misesmail(a)colossus.net Precedence: Bulk The Executive State: The U.S. Presidency vs. American Liberty When President Clinton asked golfer Tiger Woods to join him at an official propaganda event, and even offered to send Air Force One, Tiger answered as every freedom-loving American should: he had something better to do. He was going on a vacation with some college chums. Tiger has his priorities straight, but his turndown is another indication that the presidency is shrinking as an institution. It still commands, but no longer compels, our undying (or dying) obedience, no matter how many monuments are erected to despots on the Washington Mall. This trend is all to the good. The legacy of presidential autocracy from the earliest days of the republic to the present survives in the form of the executive state. But where can you go in the library to find the truth about the havoc U.S. presidents have wrecked on the American promise of freedom? Virtually nowhere. The official history of the presidency reads like the Lives of the Saints. The Mises Institute intends to do something about this. In the Fall of 1998, we're holding a major academic conference on the American presidency. Our purpose is to debunk the conventional view that the more power he's usurped, the better off the American people are. All the presidents qualify for study, but we are especially interested in the checkered careers and dictates of Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Roosevelt I, Wilson, Roosevelt II, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan. If you're a scholar and would like to participate with a paper on some aspect of a presidential power grab (or one of those few occasions when a president did some good) let us know. An abstract is all that's necessary to be considered now. The Ludwig von Mises Institute Auburn, Alabama 36849-5301 334-844-2500; fax: 334-844-2583 --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0

airlines_2.html
by Lynx_User＠linux.nycmetro.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters New Media [ Yahoo | Write Us | Search | Info ] [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: Clinton Defends Wife's Whitewater Statements Next Story: Clinton, Zedillo Work to Improve Relations _________________________________________________________________ Tuesday May 6 11:33 PM EDT Airlines Step Up Baggage Security Measures WASHINGTON (Reuter) - U.S. airlines started a nationwide domestic trial Tuesday to match passengers with luggage as a way to intercept terrorists who might try to get a bomb on a plane in an unaccompanied bag. The Air Transport Association, which represents all the major U.S. carriers, said the trial followed recommendations by a special White House commission formed after the explosion last summer of TWA flight 800. Terrorism was at first thought to be the cause of the explosion that killed all 230 people on board the Boeing 747, but officials say evidence now lead to mechanical failure. John Meenan, Air Transport Association vice president for policy and planning, said the trial would run for about two weeks. He said the airlines were deciding the extent of bag checking, on Federal Aviation Administration advice to run trials at various airports, including hub and spoke operations and city-to-city flights. Meenan said there was a potential for delays when a passenger checked a bag but then, for any reason, might not board the flight and stayed back for a later connection. In the past, he said, that would not cause a problem. "But in the trial, if they find you are not there, they must find your bag in the belly of the plane," Meenan said. "The delay can be very significant." He said if one plane were held up for an hour at a busy airport, that would prevent another aircraft from landing and taking its place at the gate, as well as cause passengers to miss connections. "You have cascading effect," he said. FAA spokeswoman Rebecca Trexler said she hoped there would not be too many delays, adding that the trial was in part to see the effect of bag matching on airline schedules. Trexler added that airlines had the option of suspending the trial if delays were 20 minutes or longer, but by the end of the day she had no reports of any delays that long. Bags are already matched on overseas flights, Meenan said, but those are not scheduled as closely together as domestic flights when every departure and arrival is timed to get full use out of every plane making any delay costly to the carrier. He said he did not think bag matching was the answer to security because it would cause too many serious delays. He said the answer might be a combination of bag matching and profiling passengers to try to screen for further investigation any passenger who seemed to be a potential risk, also recommended by the special commission. _________________________________________________________________ ________________________ ___________ Help _________________________________________________________________ Previous Story: Clinton Defends Wife's Whitewater Statements Next Story: Clinton, Zedillo Work to Improve Relations _________________________________________________________________ [ Index | News | World | Biz | Tech | Politic | Sport | Scoreboard | Entertain | Health ] _________________________________________________________________ Reuters Limited Questions or Comments

2 1

IBM's New Algo
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New York Times, May 7, 1997, p. D5. I.B.M. Researchers Develop A New Encryption Formula By Laurence Zuckerman I.B.M. plans to announce today that two of its researchers have come up with a new computer encryption formula that they say is nearly impossible to crack. The International Business Machines Corporation said that the breakthrough was still a long way from being employed outside the lab and that it did nothing to resolve the running dispute between the computer industry and the Federal Government over whether law enforcement agencies should be given access to encrypted communications. But it could ultimately help reduce the vulnerability of so-called public-key encryption, which is the favored security method used to safeguard commerce and privacy on the Internet. "They've made a big advance," said Joan Feigenbaum, a researcher at AT&T Labs in Murray Hill, N.J., who is familiar with the work of the two computer scientists who developed the system, Miklos Ajtai and Cynthia Dwork of I.B.M.'s Almaden Research Center in San Jose, Calif. "Scientifically, this is a big step in the right direction." But Bruce Schneier, a computer security consultant in Minneapolis and author of a standard textbook on cryptography, dismissed the news. "Theoretically it is important, but as a security breakthrough there is nothing new," he said. In public-key encryption, the sender of an electronic communication uses software that automatically scrambles the information by incorporating a publicly known numerical key. Decoding the scrambled transmission requires a private key, a number supposedly known only by the recipient. The security of the system depends, among other things, on how difficult it is for an electronic eavesdropper to crack the code using a powerful computer. If some of the codes that are generated by the system are difficult to break but others are easy, the system is inherently weak. I.B.M. said that its new system was the first to generate hundreds of codes at random, each of which is as difficult to crack as the hardest instance of the underlying mathematical problem. The system is based on a problem that has defied solution by mathematicians for 150 years, I.B.M. said. Mr. Schneier said that the cryptographic formulas now in use were already robust enough. The biggest challenge, he said, is creating security systems in the real world that are not vulnerable to hackers. "Cryptography is a lot more than math" he said. [End]

3 3

Netscape-128 not at Replay.com
by Mike 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems that the US versions of Netscape have been removed from ftp.replay.com. Did Netscape comment on the software being available, or what happened? Mike.

2 1