December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: "Matchcode" technology sparks privacy flames.....
by russ＠russ-smith.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Few things are more contradictory than calling in the government -- the biggest known violator of privacy -- to "protect" privacy on the Internet. ... This is the kind of generalized hand-waving statement I am talking about. If you are talking about the FBI or the IRS I would agree but I don't think the FTC is collecting personal information in order to violate privacy (although I think they give industry an unfair advantage when it comes to developing privacy rules). I also don't think agencies like the National Endowment for Arts or the Park Service is doing this either. I also think the government is #2 behind companies such as Experian and Metromail due the profit incentive. As for going to agencies such as the FTC for assistance, I am looking for them to develop rules so I can protect my own privacy. I do not expect them, nor do I think they are capable of, protecting my privacy (they cannot even develop their own privacy policy for their web site correctly). I want to able to find out who has information about me and be able to (in some circumstances) stop the distribution of the information if I so desire and make it unprofitable for companies to violate such regulations. Another example is the junk e-mail. CEI says the FTC should be concerned with property rights and the 'rules of law' but then go on to indicate the FTC should not get involved in junk e-mail regulations. I view the hundreds of spams I received as a violation of my property rights and I simply want to recover my expenses. I went to a telecommunications deregulation seminar at CATO about 2 weeks ago and I found some the people there to use the same hand-waving arguments. I was discussing the situation with uu.net and the 'Internet death penalty' situation when other administrators got together and stopped routing their packets for newsgroups. Who knows how this could be used in the future. My suggestion was to have some type of rule concerning the packet flow when it is necessary to depend on another provider to route your packets. The answer I received: Internet users need to get redundant paths through the Internet. That sounds real good during a debate while sitting in CATO being served lunch, but such a plan would clearly put many small operators at the mercy of large ISP's or would simply put them out of business. A presenter on the CATO board also kept discussing how good the WinTel situation has been to consumers. She did have a somewhat valid point since, even with all the problems, computers are relatively cheap and an entire operating system costs less than $100. However, what would it be like if the DOJ didn't keep talking about breaking up the monopoly? Russ Smith http://consumer.net

1 0

Re: Exports and criminalizing crypto
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> >J. Random Hotmail User, you'd better learn to read the text of the bills >you so blithely think are OK. Well, I read the text of the bill, and here is part of what it says: `(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; This sounds like it should cover the kind of crypto that we are talking about and that Ian Goldberg does. It is generally available and installable by the purchaser (it's free) and it is in the public domain and generally accessible to the interested public, etc. And see, there are no export licenses for this. There is another part that has the stuff you were talking about re "diversion" and terrorism, but that is separate. It is for software that is not generally accessible and installable by the purchaser and all that. More specialized stuff, like custom packages. But cypherpunks software is for everybody, and this bill should make it free to export. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Re: Why no version of SAFE removes export ctrls, and all are dangerous
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>: Sure, removing export controls completely would benefit everyone, but SAFE doesn't go that far: Only software "that is generally available" overseas may be exported. Which means if I invent a new data-scrambling method that nobody overseas has developed, I'm screwed. This is wrong. I quoted the part earlier removing restrictions on generally available software. Here is what they say about that: "(A) the term 'generally available' means, in the case of software (including software with encryption capabilities), software that is offered for sale, license, or transfer to any person without restriction, whether or not for consideration, including, but not limited to, over-the-counter retail sales, mail order transactions, phone order transactions, electronic distribution, or sale on approval; There's nothing about it having to be available overseas. You are probably confusing it with the hardware part: "(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. But that part is hardware only. Software just has to be freely available to anyone who wants it. It's almost like this was written just for cypherpunks. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

2 1

Concrete examples re why we can't trust the government with our keys.
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From today's San Jose Mercury News' "AP Breaking News" section - First, the FBI settled a FOIA suit with a scholar who had sought access to the FBI's files re John Lennon - the FBI fought release for 16 years, finally agreeing to release all but 10 records and pay the requester's $204,000 in accrued attorney's fees. The records released revealed no information which suggested that Lennon was involved in, planned to, or engaged in an illegal act; he was, however, unpopular with the then-head of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover. Who is Louis Freeh spying on? <http://www.sjmercury.com/news/breaking/docs/080798.htm> Second, a former NSA employee was sentenced to 18 years in Federal prison for selling classified information to the Soviet Union for a mere $27,000. How much would he have charged for escrowed key information? <http://www.sjmercury.com/news/breaking/docs/072698.htm> -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | Export jobs, not crypto. http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | http://www.parrhesia.com

2 1

Plea for help from IRS; Liberty?
by decius＠ninja.techwood.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Plea from a parent who wants to keep their kid free of SSNs > > David C. Treibs > Fredericksburg, TX 78624 > sirdavid(a)ktc.com > > We are in trouble with the IRS, and we need help. <SNIP> > For Liberty, Although your attempts to free your children from the database establishment are admirable, please do not confuse your fight with the government over who has the "right" to >CONTROL< your children with a fight for "liberty." If your children decided they did not want to live in your house anymore, I'm sure you'd have the police round them up. If you were truely concerned with liberty, you'd be concerned with your CHILDRENS' liberty... And if so I doubt you'd have made the following statement: > The Clintons are also working to push us into the UN Rights of the > Child > Treaty, which shifts many parental rights and responsibilities to the > government. The Clintons want to bypass parents and directly access > children. How do you think they plan to monitor and enforce compliance > with this horrible treaty? The SSN, in my opinion. I am going to jump to the conclusion here that you have neither read this treaty nor do you have the slightest clue what it says or what it means. I might be wrong about that, but then you might wish to explain where "monitoring" and "enforcement" and Social Security Numbers fall into what is basically a restatement of the American Bill of Rights with the express demand that these rights be extended to minors. The United States is one of the few countries in the western world that hasn't signed it? Why? Due to numerous complex generational, economic, and political issues it has become extremely popular to blame the problems of the world on fanciful "youth predators." As a result, minors in the United States may be tried as adults in court, despite the fact they they cannot even gain standing in court and press charges themselves. They may be executed as an adult, but they may not vote as one. (Incidentally, the American practice of executing minors is extremely rare internationally and is one of the big reasons why this country remains on Humanity International's bad guy list along side places where slavery is legal.) Minors have very little right to freedom of speech and thought. Minors have no right to privacy. If the US signed this treaty they would have to remove the metal detectors from the schools, they would have to stop requiring that children carry see-through bags, they would have to allow children the right to express their beleifs, they would have to stop enforcing "anti-gang" curfew laws and loitering laws (which are far more common in peaceful suburban communities than in places that actually have problems with youth violence), and worst of all, they would have to allow children to file lawsuits against abusive parents. (Those who follow internet politics might wish to note that at the same time the Christian Coallition was screaming "protect the children from internet porn" they were also, more quitely, protesting state's ability to interfere in cases of child abuse... this is considered pro-family.) Although I no longer have to endure the numerous restrictions that the government places on minors, I am not yet old enough to have forgotten what it feels like to be treated like a criminal because of an arbitrary number overwhich I have no control, and ultimately because of a newspaper editor's profit motive. Have you ever been arrested simply because you chose to take a walk during an unapproved time of day? Although I do agree that the government should not have the ability to control how you raise your children; I feel that these "restrictions" cannot be lifted until children have the ability to fight back, or leave, when serious problems arise. The Christian Coallition would have us return to the days of Victorian "values" where child and spousal abuse were so common place that they were considered normal activity and protected by law. So I ask you not to confuse what you are doing with a fight for liberty. Liberty is not about your rights. Liberty is about everyone's rights. -- */^\* Tom Cross AKA Decius 615 AKA The White Ninja */^\* Decius(a)ninja.techwood.org "If the economic, social and political conditions... do not offer a basis for the realization of individuality, while at the same time people have lost those ties which gave them security... powerful tendencies arise to escape from freedom into submission." -- Erich Fromm

2 1

Re: How the FBI/NSA forces can further twist SAFE
by Paul Spirito 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>: >> That's why it may take close to a year -- perhaps until next summer -- for Congress to finish compromising away your rights to use whatever encryption software you like. << And next year *is* an election year. If nothing awful happens, it shouldn't be much of an issue, but sooner or later there'll be a big bang made by terrorists who've used crypto in the plotting, & then anyone who opposed the FBI line will get drubbed, perhaps fatally (i.e. they'll lose their seat). The single "best" reason for congresscritters to support GAK is CYA; supporting American business isn't a sufficient counterforce, especially when "big business" has become a dirty word for much of the American electorate, the affected companies seem to be doing damn well, & they aren't old pros at lobbying. Dead babies are more dramatic than annual reports (even if -- as we all know -- GAK will do little or nothing to prevent terrorism &c. Fairness counts for little in political campaigns...) I agree with Declan -- obstructionism is the only way to go. Let's review the current situation: a) Crypto know-how is globally distributed & impossible to annihilate. b) There are no domestic US restrictions on encryption development or use. c) There are onerous US restrictions of export of encryption software. >From a cyberlibertarian/privacy advocate viewpoint this isn't so bad. It's true that lifting of export restrictions would get better crypto into more hands more quickly, but one doesn't have to be a Libertarian to believe that the market will fill that gap -- with non-US firms (possibly in collaboration with US ones) developing & marketing the technology; indeed, it's already happening. >From a US business viewpoint, the situation *is* bad. There's a temptation to sell out b) in order to improve c). I'm not conspiracy-minded, but one should beware of differences in motive, particularly as we enter a convoluted, lobbying-heavy phase. What makes me optimistic is that GAKed crypto isn't likely to sell. Other than that, we'd be doomed. Hopefully, legislation can be delayed until foreign companies have widely deployed commercial strong crypto, & US companies are demonstrably (to the person in the street) feeling the pain. Then GAK will be obviously pointless and stupid. It'll cost US jobs, which hurts (me, as an American, most of whose friends are American), but it's the best we can hope for, I think. Silicon Valley -- the Flint, Michigan of the year 2000? Paul ujgdejoxenotejotmbgtang ircpqbgluzstizg

1 0

Plea from a parent who wants to keep their kid free of SSNs
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Anonymous wrote: >Anonymous who signed himself as Monty Cantsin <anon(a)anon.efga.org> writes: >> While I am generally sympathetic with Mr. Treibs, it does not seem >> reasonable to ask for a government child subsidy while claiming the >> government has no business raising kids. > >Since when is a deduction on income tax (not a tax credit) a >`government child subsidy'? > >It's not the government's money. That's true. And it is worth taking the trouble to distinguish between pure subsidies like those that TRW and welfare queens take from tax subsidies which most people take. Still, a tax deduction is a benefit. How much would you pay for a $1000 tax deduction? It depends on your marginal income tax rate, of course, but presumably you would pay around $300. Mr. Treibs is asking for this benefit, for special treatment from the government, solely because he has children. If he doesn't want the government to insist that his children be tagged like everyone else, it would be very easy for him to forego this benefit and pay under the same tax scheme that many other childless people pay. Unjust? No more so than the tax rate people without children are forced to pay. But, I wish Mr. Treibs and his family well. They sound like the kind of good decent people that one would like to have for neighbors. Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNCr8P5aWtjSmRH/5AQHERQf/QzYaifjLsspLkULVwFdK9bbbR6pc8Imp KbTH+i31Pp67U+Gb9UbtFRw08ysJ659vmMgL+f07yQnNNr5ZJfSDyEmrFO/P5mOq 9eSm+vEZaBsUGBrEKaUowsXb4mWnj8QIu1xV+0xI00+uNk4qGlAB0U0MFjoarN2c cGvfmWZvMmHOgdTMp1cDXJ/DlzsTJmCWLbvaCMhnqtL6tCEAem+jqgZ79zCl15ut YgtsKPVXBln1w9zSF95t4cpnyHMtO5ct2bdtIBWMrVCYsmAK3wTy+CKZUhGk/X5Z Cs51EJ2baBNFizW2nSFZjCYsIDIkQAcBJg1SVkGgHF+sJU2rR/1ppw== =gNsM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Remailer latency
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Joe Grasty wrote: >At 11:58 PM 9/25/97 +0200, Anonymous (sic) wrote: >>If you operate a remailer, please tell us what you need to make it >>really work well. Perhaps the rest of us can help make it happen. > >Sure. Send me $125 a month for a dedicated line, and I'll insure >that you get low latencies on winsock. It's a start! According to Raph's list, your remailer has a latency of about 16 hours. Dialing in should cause a latency of, at most, an hour. That is, you could reasonably dial in once an hour, or even every fifteen minutes. Is there some other cause for the latency? Do you have an ecash account? If you charged 25 cents per message, you would only need to handle about 17 messages a day to cover your dedicated line. The load on the line would be negligible and you could use it for other things. Please excuse my reluctance to fund your dedicated line, but probably the money would be better spent subsidizing hardware for people who are willing to set up remailers. Incidentally, if somebody offered you colocation space, would you be willing to set up your machine there? Monty Cantsin Editor in Chief Smile Magazine http://www.neoism.org/squares/smile_index.html http://www.neoism.org/squares/cantsin_10.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBNCr4XJaWtjSmRH/5AQEBZQf6Aup0XcdJURyied5CaX3jsDTYAz7X4wHB 2isCDLaEE5Aa2lIt9weN5hRi2tWpo16RHqtWBvruyvu9c7DNu9We99TwmB4OFmQn sjexds6DWMO7obl77kWhjBLkMDshPS3/tbsAsaoEF0lInAdF0Pq/Tqx+OKnQzCGE SX92rT0FIJtOsY+fbJMv68a6/vXgmPfjMtP00klJY5gxnmyeaoFPGFloPVFgHhqG pA0++8Y5xTezgSmQswZxkaWkW9gBrJpOc3gWJgF7GzxcknOZHBweMXBmw0uRVXh8 vifPP7FvEe0w+OAhVycmgynpnLbKPGRzIp8abCsFUW+TQl9mhOEwzQ== =0Tgw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: Oxley Amendment
by Michael Brock 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I agree that there should be *NO* rules about encryption... If the government wants to break encryption, buy the people who hack it and let them go just like every other good industrial country... M. -----Original Message----- From: Lucky Green [SMTP:shamrock@cypherpunks.to] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 9:17 AM To: Michael Brock Cc: cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net Subject: Re: Oxley Amendment On Wed, 24 Sep 1997, Michael Brock wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I wonder if Mr. Solomon of NY will rethink his decision to not bring > up SAFE without Oxley to the entire House after the unprecedented > coaltion of companies and individual groups that came together to > make sure that mandatory key recovery stays a "1984" like dream. I > find it incomprehensible that one man, would block the introduction > of this bill, after it being proved that this is what his > constituents want.... What in the world makes you believe that Mr. Solomon's constituents would want SAFE to go the the floor? SAFE *must* be defeated, with or without the Oxley ammendment. -- Lucky Green <shamrock(a)cypherpunks.to> PGP encrypted email preferred. "Tonga? Where the hell is Tonga? They have Cypherpunks there?"

1 0

Re: How the FBI/NSA forces can further twist SAFE
by Syniker＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm all for the year... get more people using crypto everyday... We 'gotta make it popular and the 'thing to do'... We need a Captain Marvel Secret Decoder Ring... "Hey Kids, send a secret message to your buddies..." At this point... after what's happened so far.. I'm in favor of a Clinton veto... NO crypto laws at all... LarryM.

3 2