December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #13 (fwd)
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here is a forward of the CFD where PGP was mentionned. I posted several off-topic messages to the CFD, to introduce theses peoples to encryption, digital signatures, e$, etc. For thoses who are curious about firearms related politics in Kanada, this it *the* forum for it. Take note that the Allan Rock discussed in the various posts is the former Canada Justice Minister, now Canada Health Minister, who fanatically drafted and frantically pushed bill C-68, the gun registration bill. Just so you know, now, in Kanada, simple possession of *any* firearms or some other weapons *is* a crime passible of 14 year of imprisonement, *unless* you get a permit that, in effect, waive that crime. Of course, they say that they make it simple and reasonable to get it, but what the authorities want is to disamr the population. Recently, they did not even shy out at saying it explicitely. Among their plans, the outright confiscation without compensation of a great number of now Verboten types of firearms. And you thought that the Kool Komrades were very far from you... JFA PGP key at w3.citenet.net/users/jf_avon or at the MIT key server. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:03:08 -0600 From: Cdn-Firearms Digest <owner-cdn-firearms-digest(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> To: cdn-firearms-digest(a)broadway.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Subject: Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #13 Cdn-Firearms Digest Thursday, September 25 1997 Volume 02 : Number 013 In this issue: re: mor(e )on Bill C-68 Unique registration Re: Claire Hoy on "Free Speech" -- The Hill Times Re: Carry Permits Police Function in Canada (mtoma) Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) www.pgp.com Foundations of Canadian Life re: The Police Function in Canada antique guns With friends like these ... Re: More Moronic Ramblings research links Re: Bill C-68 is not yet in force... Home-invasion victim winds up facing gun-storage charges ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:12:39 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" <ab133(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> Subject: re: mor(e )on Bill C-68 >then what the government should do is to totally outlaw the private >ownership of all handguns, semi-automatic, and automatic weapons. Such >weapons should be reserved for the police and military alone. Someone >once said that rifles were designed for hunting and, thereby, putting >food on the table, but handguns were designed for one purpose and one >purpose only: to kill people. The same goes for automatic weapons and >assault rifles. So get rid of them altogether (and to hell with the >target shooters - let them use air pistols!). "Automatic weapons" are machine guns, i.e. they are "fully automatic" (can fire many rounds with one trigger squeeze). "Assault rifles" are machine guns (of a specific type). There are 4500 Canadians who may own registered machine guns, and do. There has never been a registered machine gun used in a crime or suicide by its owner. I've never found an incident of one being stolen and used. So why ban them? There are one million registered pistols, used safely every year. Less than five are involved in a homicide each year, including justifiable homicides. More than 80% of the 600 annual homicides do not involve a pistol, let alone a registered pistol. So why ban them? If I can be trained and trusted to own use a car/chainsaw/airplane/ whatever safely, I should be able to be trained and trusted to own and use _any_ kind of firearm safely. Period. What's more dangerous: Using a gun at a range or flying an aircraft over a city? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:16:32 -0600 (CST) From: SBKracer <cronhelm(a)nucleus.com> Subject: Unique registration I own a Remington, WWII era, 1911A1 with a new serial number stamped over the spot where the original would have been. In fact some of the original number can still be seen. What are the chances this handgun is uniquely registered? The new serial number is a 5 digit number but I have NO IDEA where the number came from, who supplied it or who stamped it on. I am at least the third owner (that I know of) of this particular pistol since it entered Canada. I also own an Allan rock special which with the slide removed has NO markings at all save for a four digit number stamped on the backstrap. Could this number possibly be a patent number? I don't know how many digits typically make up a patent number. The pistol is an Arizzabalaga Terrible (at least that is what it says on the registration certificate) made circa 1920. Nice name for a gun huh? The "Terrible!" Specially considering it is chambered for that manstopping 6.35 (.25ACP) cartridge. Peter Cronhelm ZX-7 Carbon Fibre Racing Machine SBKracer YSR/YZ80 The Little Beast "I'm not the man you say I am, not radical nor mentally deranged." - -Sons of Freedom- "Without the threat of death, what's the point in living at all!" - -Marilyn Manson- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:17:29 -0600 (CST) From: "John E. Stevens" <jstevens(a)serix.com> Subject: Re: Claire Hoy on "Free Speech" -- The Hill Times skeeter wrote: > >Claire Hoy has a good column on "Free Speech" in this week's The Hill >Times. > >http://www.thehilltimes.ca/hilltimes/hoy.html AND while you're there, take time to read: Plan to introduce bills in Senate sparks fury in government and opposition benches. It's sometimes kind of scarry how our democratic government subtly attempts to circumvent democracy. [sometimes?... -- Skeeter] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:47:21 -0600 (CST) From: Juha Askola <krista(a)rapidnet.net> Subject: Re: Carry Permits Yes, you can take your friends handgun provided you are in possession of a valid carry permit and green slip belonging to the gun you're carrying. I don't know the law on this one but I would play it safe. When I purchased my .45, I just took the receiver part to the police but still with a trigger lock. Took a little arguing to make them understand that they don't need or require slide or barrel to register a gun, it was fun. Chao, Juha ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:48:44 -0600 (CST) From: someone(a)inter.net Subject: Police Function in Canada (mtoma) >[Moderator: This may or may not be "official policy." Without knowing the >context or the original author it is difficult to evaluate. HTB] [snip] >This particular document is by far the scariest federal gun control >document I have ever seen. In short it outlines stategies for gun >confiscation and prohibition orders for gun owning citizens and the >general disarmament of the populace. [snip] Even if this document is a complete fake, which we have no way of finding out, it is very possible something similar is in the works. Just look at UK and Australia! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:49:33 -0600 (CST) From: someone(a)inter.net Subject: Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) www.pgp.com In previous issues of the CFD, the issues of using and the governments' attempts to restrict the use of Pretty Good Privacy encryption software (www.pgp.com) was discussed and compared to restricting the use of firearms. I noticed a lot of users of this list have their PGP fingerprint attached to their message, which is great. However, a lot of people are reluctant to use PGP because it was difficult to use and install. For those using Eudora (16-bit or 32-bit), PGP Inc. has a special offer to have a full version of PGP 5.0 for Eudora plug-in, which supports both RSA and DSS/DH algorithm, for US$5 (five dollars). Personally, I think it is money well spent, with governments creeping up on us, you never know when you HAVE TO encrypt all your email. Go to www.pgp.com for more details. I'm in no way shape or form related to PGP Inc, Qualcomm, or anyone who might benefit from the sale of PGP or Eudora. I'm just an immigrant to this great country and would love to preserve the freedom we enjoy. [Also visit the PGP resources listed under "Freedom sites" at the cdn-firearms home page. http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/ -- Skeeter] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:51:02 -0600 (CST) From: "Geoff Stokes" <geoff_stokes(a)bc.sympatico.ca> Subject: Foundations of Canadian Life Recently, a local reporter found himself in a precarious position. He's been reporting on a ticket fixing case and he has a good source close to the investigation. My point is that his article seems to echo the fears some members of the RFC have with regard to the latest gun control scheme: >From the article entitled: Call Threatens Foundation of Canadian Life. "Two weeks ago I received a thinly veiled threat from someone who is either a policeman or somehow connected with the police...Then it became clear that it was the very idea that a pion like me would dare meddle with the RCMP...Finally, he said, If you start messing around with the big boys, you're going to get an education in life...the fact that most people believe that the police, the ones who are supposed to protect us, are capable of the kind of harassment and intimidation that my anonymous caller alluded to...To date, I'm happy to report that there have been no unexplained searches of my vehicle, no funny clicks on my phone and nothing to suggest that I am anyone's particular target...But I don't even like thinking that those things are a possibility, not in this country." hmmmm..., sounds an awful lot like what it may be like under Bill C-68 concerning increased police discretion; or how an uncooperative, non-complier may be treated in future..., or am I really going paranoid?? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 15:21:37 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" <ab133(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> Subject: re: The Police Function in Canada >From: SBKracer <cronhelm(a)nucleus.com> > >[The moderator wrote: This may or may not be "official policy." >Without knowing the context or the original author it is difficult to >evaluate. HTB] > >Sunday at a gunshow in Cow Town I got a copy of a news letter containing a >Federal document on gun control dated 1977. This document had been >e-mailed by <mtoma(a)compusmart.ab.ca>. The excerpt printed in digest number 10 (volume 2) was scary, but I think the one below is worse. ___________________________________________________________________ As regards the Police Function in Canada, prior to passage of the foregoing it was the opinion of the administrations: 1. That in face of mass civil disobedience the use of Force had limited capabilities.... 2. That in face of mass civil disobedience any display of available Force would not have credibility.... ....as far as an armed and organized Public was concerned and it was felt in the interests of the Function that it was desirous to ensure the Public be discretely but effectively disarmed over a period of the forthcoming 5 years. The foregoing is not entirely the opinion of the administrations of the Function, but is one which has been voiced generally even at the rank and file level...that being that the absence of firearms in the hands of the Public in general would increase the safety of a Patrolmans work. With the passage of the Firearms Section of the Criminal Code of Canada Amendments, having been predetermined that in regards to the Functions ability as a Control and Enforcement Agency there was: 1. A lack of personnel suitably indoctrinated at specific assignment levels and sectors within the proposed Control Structure. 2. A requirement for the adequate indoctrination and training time, 3. A requirement for time to phase in the various levels and sectors of the proposed Control Structure independently of one and another in a manner which would not create alarm, nor allow premature rapport. 4. A requirement for time to nullify the credibility of alarmists and dissenters. ___________________________________________________________________ This document was obtained from MP Peter Elzinga. I had been faxed a copy back in 1994, but the source was "unknown". We may never know if it was/is for real... read it all in Cdn-Firearms Digest V1 #860 http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/cdn-firearms/Digests/v01n800-899/v01n860 ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:15:14 -0600 (CST) From: dcmiller(a)mail.island.net (douglas c miller) Subject: antique guns I think the Dave's answer in regard to the antique guns in digest V2 #12 was a little weak. My first objection is that an 1864 Enfield MkII* is probably a Snider Enfield and as such would be .58 caliber and I very much doubt that it would be found in .303. I think that Dave is mistaking it for a Martini Enfield. His second comment re Winchesters would have been far more accurate if he had stated Winchester repeaters/carbines came in the following models. The model 1885 is a single shot in high wall and low wall models and I don't believe would ever have been referred to as a saddle ring carbine. What is perhaps more instructive of the questions posed is the error or risk of registering one's own guns as illustrated by the owner who works in or in conjunction with a museum appears to have made at least one descriptive mistake. Just my $.02 worth D.C. Miller ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:54:14 -0600 (CST) From: jean hogue <jean_hogue(a)sympatico.ca> Subject: With friends like these ... >>I am an archaeologist by >>profession and work for the **************** government. >> ... >>On the other hand, if there is really that >>great a concern over public safety (as opposed to the amount of revenue >>that can be generated by this punitive registration/licensing system), >>then what the government should do is to totally outlaw the private >>ownership of all handguns, semi-automatic, and automatic weapons. Such >>weapons should be reserved for the police and military alone. > I think Dave's reply to this was far too polite. Yet another case where this quote by Pastor Martin Niemoller is so appropriate: "In Germany they first came for the communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. They came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade Unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade Unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up." Just under what logic does this government archaeologist justify banning the best-behaved guns in the country ? Several thousands (I believe 5,000) automatic weapons were lawfully registered before 1979 by non-military, non-police law-abiding citizens. Not a single one has ever been involved in a crime of violence. As for automatic weapons being reserved strictly to the police and military, two things: 1- the only two cases of homicides committed with automatic weapons legally registered were: a) military: Corporal Lortie killed three in the Quebec National Assembly (provincial govm't) -- 1985 or 1986; b) police: in Rock Forest, police fired a burst from an Uzi, through the motel room door, killing a labourer police mistakenly assumed to be the hold-up suspect they were looking for -- early 1980's. 2- the government archaeologist sounds just like Allan "Alibi Al" Rock: "I came to Ottawa with the firm belief that the only people in this country who should have guns are police officers and soldiers." Allan Rock, Canada's previous Minister of Justice Maclean's "Taking Aim on Guns", April 25, 1994, p 12 Pay attention to the man behind the curtain. A recent "study" by police of guns recovered at crime scenes "concluded" that "legal" guns (they meant unrestricted) were used in crime far more often than handguns and evil semi-automatic "assault" rifles. The government archaeologist's toys are deemed by police to be even more dangerous than the toys being condemned by the archaeologist. I have really lost patience for this mentality of throwing off "wolf meat" from the dogsleigh to escape the wolves. The archaeologist is simply advocating that the gun owner community sell off owners of handguns and semi-automatics so that people like the archaeologist can be left alone with their more politically-correct toys. All this based on nothing more than an _iffy_ "concern". Thanks for the back-stabbing and dream on! As Max Headroom said: with friends like these, who needs an oenema? ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 09:55:47 -0600 (CST) From: dons(a)Cadabratech.com (Don Shesnicky) Subject: Re: More Moronic Ramblings Here's an interesting story along this theme... I caught this one on CBC radio two days ago while driving into work. It was an excerpt from something that, I believe it was Martin Bell from the BBC, said during a book presentation in Ottawa. He stated something to the effect that the media could never be detached from the stories they covered. As an example he put forth this story, which was said to be true and which I will put into my own words: It seems that a reporter visiting Bosnia wanted to do a story on snipers. A Bosnian commander told him to go with one of his snipers. They crawled into place and after the sniper took a look out onto a street told the reporter to take a peek and tell him what he saw. After looking the reporter said he could see two civilians standing in the street. The sniper asked him which one should die. The reporter realizing that he suddenly didn't want to be there explained at length to the sniper that he didn't want either of them to die. As he turned to go he heard two shots. He turned back to the sniper who said "Too bad, you could have saved one of them". Powerful story. Don ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 13:20:05 -0600 (CST) From: "Skeeter Abell-Smith" <ab133(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca> Subject: research links A couple of good links from the Cdn-Firearms Home Page (under "research"): http://www.nra.org/research/rihome.html and http://www.nra.org/research/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:01:28 -0600 (CST) From: griffith(a)comnet.ca Subject: Re: Bill C-68 is not yet in force... >> and an 1885 >>Winchester saddle-ring carbine w/octagonal barrel in very fine >>condition. >Winchesters went through Models 1873, to 1876, to 1886, to 1892, to >1894. Which do you have, and in what calibre? There is no Model >1885. I got stuck with one of them fake model 1885 too. I guess I should of been more suspicious when the guy who sold it to me kept referring to it as a "High Wall". Sure is pretty. but i ain't worked out yet how do I load the magazine. Gerald Griffith " The easiest thing in the world to achieve is the effective disapproval of any sort of uncritically vested authority. " < Alexander King > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 14:05:49 -0600 (CST) From: "David A. Tomlinson" <nfadat(a)telusplanet.net> Subject: Home-invasion victim winds up facing gun-storage charges Thursday, September 25, 1997 Home-invasion victim winds up facing gun-storage charges By SKANA GEE -- The Daily News The victim of a home invasion in Middle Sackville last month now has his own date with a judge. Clarence Joseph Arsenault, 60, was charged yesterday with illegal storage of firearms, stemming from an investigation into the robbery at his house Aug. 27. "They were kept in a room that wasn't secured very well and they were not secured very well," said Lower Sackville RCMP Const. Lynn Tardif. "They were kind of just in disarray." She said Mounties seized about 60 handguns, rifles and shotguns, including those that were stolen during the home invasion, during which Arsenault's elderly mother and seven-year-old grandson were tied up with rope and duct tape. Return Oct. 1 The two men charged in that incident return to Bedford provincial court Oct. 1 to make their election. The charge against Arsenault alleges he stored restricted firearms without failing to render them inoperable by a secure locking device and storing them in a locked container or room "that is constructed so that it cannot readily be broken open." "It's one charge dealing with all the different firearms," said Tardif. She said many people in the community knew the Lakeview Avenue man was a gun collector, a situation aggravated by the fact his weapons were "easy to get at." Just after the home invasion, Arsenault told The Daily News he had begun to clean the guns "for the next gun show." He also said he expected to be charged. Tardif said police sympathize with Arsenault's family for the ordeal they experienced, but they maintain the charge is warranted. "It put everybody in a bad situation as far as I'm concerned," she said. "We have a job to do. We have no choice, but we also want to raise awareness about this kind of thing." Tardif said she could only speculate on what might have occurred if the weapons had been stored differently. "I don't know if you can necessarily prevent the robbery, but it would have made it a lot harder for them," she said. Arsenault will be arraigned Nov. 19. Joshua Alexander Pelley, 23, and Kenneth Wayne Beazley, 20, are charged with committing robbery by stealing guns while using threats of violence; break, enter and theft; and wearing a mask while committing an indictable offence in connection with the home invasion. The NFA has supplied Mr. Arsenault with transcripts of court decisions that indicate the charge against him [CC s. 86(3), storage "in violation of a regulation"] cannot be used because it is a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. THE NFA STRONGLY CONDEMNS THE CANADIAN FIREARMS CENTRE FOR NOT MAKING ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AWARE OF THE DEFECTS IN THESE "STORAGE" CHARGES. THE CFC, BY ITS REFUSAL TO DISTRIBUTE INFORMATION ABOUT IMPROPER CHARGES LIKE THIS, IS CONTRIBUTING TO ABUSIVE ENFORCEMENT. PLEASE WRITE TO THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND DEMAND JUSTICE! IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY SIMPLE FOR THE CFC TO DEVOTE ONE ISSUE OF THEIR "BULLETIN" TO THE PROBLEMS OF CC S. 86(2) AND (3), BUT THEY INSIST ON DELIVERING USELESS INFORMATION AND REFUSE TO PUBLISH IN AREAS LIKE THIS WHERE ABUSE IS RAMPANT. THEY WILL NOT PUBLISH ANYTHING THAT REDUCES THE ABUSE LEVELS. AND THAT IS WRONG. CC s. 86(3) imposes a sentence of up to two years imprisonment. The charge leaves no room for a defence of "due diligence" (I didn't do it the way the regulations said to, but I did do it in a way that had the same or a better effect). That being so, storage in the alternative way leaves one guilty of the offence, and that is a violation of the Charter right to liberty. The accused can be sent to prison for up to two years -- when the accused has done nothing wrong. That is a violation of the Charter right to "fundamental justice." The R. vs. Smillie case (BC Supreme Court) ruled that CC s.86(3) violates the Charter as indicated above, and therefore cannot be used. R. vs. Finlay (Supreme Court of Canada) ruled that CC s. 86(2) and (3) are regulatory law rather than proper criminal law, and that therefore a proper defence of "due diligence" shall succeed. Dave Tomlinson, NFA FOCUS: In trouble? Know someone who is in trouble? Learn of someone who is in trouble? Get in touch with the person in trouble, tell him or her to get help from the NFA. Call (403) 439-1394. ------------------------------ End of Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #13 ********************************* List Submissions: cdn-firearms-digest(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Mailing List Commands: majordomo(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Moderator's e-mail address: ab133(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca List owner's e-mail address: ab133(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca Web Site: http://cdn-firearms.ml.org/cdn-firearms/homepage.html FTP Site: ftp://cdn-firearms.ml.org/pub/cdn-firearms/ Digest Back-issues: FTP (cd pub/cdn-firearms/Digests) or visit the Cdn-Firearms web site (above) or send the following command to majordomo(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: get cdn-firearms-digest v01.n987 end (987 is the digest issue number and 01 is the volume) To subscribe, leave the Subject: line blank and e-mail the next 4 lines to majordomo(a)sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca: subscribe cdn-firearms-digest subscribe cdn-firearms-alert subscribe cdn-firearms-chat end (To unsubscribe, use "unsubscribe" instead of "subscribe".) These e-mail digests are free to everyone, and are made possible by the efforts of countless volunteers. If you find this service valuable, please consider making a donation to the Saskatoon Free-Net Association Box 339 RPO University Saskatoon SK S7N 4J8 modem lines: (306) 956-3700 and (306) 956-3701 Home page: http://www.sfn.saskatoon.sk.ca/ and/or the National Firearms Association Headquarters Membership and publication Box 1779 Box 4384, Station C Edmonton AB T5J 2P1 Calgary AB T2T 5N2 ph.: (403) 439-1394 ph.: (403) 640-1110 fax: (403) 439-4091 fax: (403) 640-1144 e-mail: nfadat(a)telusplanet.net Web site: http://www.nfa.ca/ Automatic, monthly donations may be made to the N.F.A. by sending a voided cheque, or your Visa/Mastercard number and expiry date, to the Membership address above, along with the amount you would like to donate: $5, $10, or another amount. Automatic donations may be cancelled at any time. N.F.A. memberships: families: $40; seniors: $20; individuals: $30; businesses: $50. Included are eleven issues of the N.F.A. newsletter Point Blank, as well as magazines like "Canadian Sportsman". Add just $4.75 per person for $2,000,000 insurance! Clubs: get associate memberships for just $2 per member ($40 minimum) and members will be still eligible for $2,000,000 liability insurance for just $4.75 each! Permission is granted to copy and distribute this digest as long as it is kept whole.

1 0

Lucky in the news
by ulf＠fitug.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Der kalifornische Cypherpunk Lucky Green is in the news. Today's issue of the German newspaper "Die Tageszeitung" has a lengthy article about PGP 5. http://www.taz.de/~taz/970925.taz/is_T970925.136.html

1 0

RE: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)
by Aaron Weissman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thursday, September 25, 1997 1:37 PM, Jeff Barber [SMTP:jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com] wrote: > We shouldn't have to "trick" Congress into doing the right thing, > or provide cover for them either. Ultimately, we are not going to "trick" them. Congress has tools, like CRS, that ensure that they (usually) have good information before a bill is sent to the President. However, why shouldn't we provide cover for them? You can be sure that Oxley, McCain, Kerrey, etc. will receive "cover" from the FBI and Law Enforcement. You can be sure that they will receive endorsements from all of the right "fraternal brotherhood of police whatever" organizations come election time. If a Member of Congress wants to support civil rights, I think that we *should* provide as much support and "cover" as possible. It's hard enough to publically support civil rights and free speech in today's media climate. We won yesterday because the Committee found a solution that gave them cover and allowed all parties to declare victory. I find that to be a very good thing. Aaron

1 0

Exports and criminalizing crypto
by John Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

off. Without the export restrictions we would see much more crypto sold and used inside the US. I'll bet there are lots of cypherpunks who are holding off releasing crypto tools because of these laws. Look at the guy who said he had to go to Canada to release his crypto. And he had to stop thinking about it when he was in the US. This is crazy. Yes, it is stupid to have a law that using crypto makes a crime worse. But this is not that bad compared to some laws. It won't affect most people. With the export restrictions gone, the green light will be given to make crypto available everywhere. Every data transmission will be encrypted, and people will be protected. It might even be that the criminal part will be shut down by the courts. Once crypto is everywhere, it will be impossible to do anything without using crypto. The law would then be like a law which said that breathing air while committing a crime will be illegal. I'm sure the lawyers could come up with a reason why this kind of a law will be unconstitutional. At this point the SAFE law looks like a good one. Everyone said that there was no way to stop the FBI from putting in the restrictions, but they were stopped. Now everyone says there is no way to get a good bill out of the Senate, or past the president. People are missing one point. We are right. Stopping people from using crypto is completely the opposite of the basic principles of this country. Look at all the groups which came out against the amendment to SAFE. The ACLU, the religious right, the NRA (how often do you see them working together?). Business executives, law professors, technical experts. If this coalition can hang together and support the bill in its current form, the SAFE law still has a chance at success. Probably not this year because there is not time, but next year they should try again. Getting rid of these export restrictions would produce an explosion of Cypherpunk style crypto software. It is a big win. "John ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

4 3

Re: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)
by K. N. Cukier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh forwarded the message by... >From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> -- who wrote: >> The NETCenter > >What an oxy-maroon. What a self-referent -- not to mention >self-congratulary -- canard. [...] > >Any entity which has the unmitigated presumption to have "center" and "net" >in its name demonstrates nothing less than total ignorance [...] > >Reality is not optional. Trying to find the "center" of any piece of the >net is equivalent to the cosmological "problem" of finding the "center" of >the universe. > >It represents the utter fallacy of hierarchy in a geodesic age. I take your point insofar as "NETCenter" and crypto, but you repeat a common misperception. Although the Net is tough to control, and it is a distributed system of networks, there are -- of course -- a number of centralized process. The Domain Name System is completely hierarchical. Moreover, Jon Postel of IANA represents the Net's central authority due to: 1. the IP number allocations, 2. the DNS "root", and 3. the technical standards, such as port numbers, etc. Unless there was a certain degree of centralized control, in an engineering perspective, the Net "Would Not Work." That's the fact, Jack -- n'est-ce pas? Yes, it is *possible* to do away with these centralized functions, and this is happening now, in a very non-public way. -- KNC

2 1

Chutzpah! FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist
by David HM Spector 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FBI Calls Privacy Extremists Elitist (09/25/97; 4:30 p.m. EDT) By David Braun, TechWire MONTREAL -- Extremist positions on electronic encryption are not only threatening to normal law enforcement, but they are also elitist and nondemocratic, said Alan McDonald, a senior counsel member with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at the International Conference on Privacy in Montreal on Thursday. Addressing a workshop on how far society should go in trading off privacy for effective law enforcement, McDonald said privacy activists had fought any balance in proposed encryption legislation. "Such absolute positions threaten not only electronic searches but also conventional searches for data that has been encrypted," McDonald said. Absolute positions on privacy were "pernicious on several levels," McDonald added. The absolute positions "handcuffed" law enforcement while also raising rights for citizens to levels that were unreasonable and that would have been foreign to the nation's founding fathers. Extreme privacy positions were ultimately elitist and nondemocratic in that they presumed the views of a knowing privacy cognoscenti should pre-empt the views of the nation's elected officials and the Supreme Court, McDonald said. McDonald's statements came a day after a key committee of the U.S. House of Representatives rejected an FBI-supported proposal that would have compelled the makers of encryption products to include features that would enable law enforcement agencies to gain immediate and, if necessary, covert access to unscramble any coded data. Extremists presumed that the citizens could not trust the elected government and the Supreme Court to make decisions or to correct mistakes if any are made, McDonald said. "Based on a theory of potential government abuse, important tools commonly used are to be restricted or embargoed," McDonald said. McDonald said efforts in the United States to enhance effective law enforcement search and seizure capabilities had proceeded without harming legitimate privacy concerns. In the area of electronic surveillance, McDonald said, privacy enhancements had frequently received treatment "superior to that required under our Constitution." With minor exceptions, neither the laws nor the cases decided regarding effective law enforcement or privacy had come about with the view that either were absolute in their nature, McDonald said. Law enforcement measures had been tempered by considerations of personal privacy, and privacy laws had been balanced with effective law enforcement. Notwithstanding the substantial threats posed by national and international organized crime, drug cartels, and terrorists, the United States had remained true to its Constitutional moorings, and its commitment to a system of ordered liberties, McDonald said. "When people don't know much about electronic surveillance, they are fearful of it. But when they know Congress passed laws and the Supreme Court reviewed them and that there are numerous constraints and procedures, then it makes sense to them. It seems rational and balanced," McDonald said. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David HM Spector spector(a)zeitgeist.com Network Design & Infrastructure Security voice: +1 212.580.7193 Amateur Radio: W2DHM (ex-N2BCA) (ARRL life member) GridSquare: FN30AS -.-. --- -. -. . -.-. - .-- .. - .... .- -- .- - . ..- .-. .-. .- -.. .. --- "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?'" --H. G. Wells

8 8

RE: Oxley Amendment
by Michael Brock 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I believe (as I am sure most here do) that crypto of any strength will become illegal, and that anyone sending a message in Pig Latin will soon be shot on sight by FBI the "protecting" our rights... Any control on encyrption, domestic or exportable, is unacceptable in today's high computing power society... Mandatory key escrow, well, you thought the IRS was corrupt... "Have you cracked RC5 today?" M. -----Original Message----- From: Declan McCullagh [SMTP:declan@well.com] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 1997 10:29 AM To: Lucky Green Cc: Michael Brock; cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net Subject: Re: Oxley Amendment Lucky has it right. SAFE is extremely unlikely to go to the floor without additional "compromise." Then there's the "compromise" with whatever bill the Senate coughs up. Remember that pro-crypto legislation is dead there; only McCain-Kerrey got out of committee. Also remember the Senate is more conservative... Then there's the reality that no pro-crypto legislation would get past a presidential veto... -Declan At 07:16 -0700 9/25/97, Lucky Green wrote: >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

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----- David C. Treibs writes via Declan McCullagh: >The Bible gives the responsibility of raising children to parents, not >to the government or any other entity. > >Forcing Social Security Numbers on children represents a major violation >of parents' God-given responsibility. 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. 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 iQEUAwUBNCrALpaWtjSmRH/5AQFr+Qf2P6C4HBs9iAPAdTKPrQSPkpDIy6y3Sa4a GFpDuPoqS9DpCEM/6oQIqezy0AdFZD8L3A7/VmRyHMW1H72I+F3KrqrEjmdc6vbK zil8XnuezijL/4IisfN5PvWaL8NmT/7f+15BE4/qegXcWOwP7LM+oHKcuk01zJLX dvMXGwtmeRBJh+bqOIbv1y0mgfaHw08MEakmN5oA8BGhTu8IhRubttGCVG+jNY46 p47NqVYYa0tt0n1kMOWl2Y+qLWucvCRsuPAzfWJzDu+fzTvNsjNwn2IJfQN/O8Id C/jVQvJv3Eo99YOAlPa1XnSGyc7SWRg/VVMto114biIVw4UtaWdy =cxyC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Remailer Attack
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- According to Raph's remailer stats, the remailers have widely varying latencies. Given that only a few remailers have latencies which are acceptably low, the list of usable remailers is quite low. If the user of the remailer, Monty Cantsin for example, signs his messages, a fairly accurate measure of total transit time is obtained. The total transit time gives clues to the remailers which were actually used in the chain. In an of itself, this may not comprise the user, but combined with other weaknesses it will cause the attacker to be significantly more confident of identification hypotheses. The remailers should all have about the same latency. 0 seconds seems like a good Schelling point. What would it take to reduce remailer latency to under 60 seconds for most of the remailers? Do people need old 486s to dedicate to the task? Do they need money? Better software? 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. 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 iQEVAwUBNCrG4paWtjSmRH/5AQFuAAf+ID6TSjoUV1sVehzW6DoqVXREyO/fR4Uw H+W6QCiTOQaRhTD1Z6WSaL9FOaBJ5aSHCdLzKy9eIvagXsYR+eqVBdO0oSuDaloc BYSN+QXSKvMEuEotkCF4RicRoENlTmD0Qcrz4KvvW+d+jRxyxejs9O0HqDeTq9y/ KpBtq8CytpEMmGc6VSHuAX90qwJTtHUk/k4ulXU7v4xMmBLu1HpS/9M5h7mooybC 8qwVJKswAMI4wTB5FlBj/+b8txkCzMdqJkFdLEYu+LAGZfkB96W9uRU+eGekCHY2 6iycxv+m4r7wXPbP9A83Y6UnP4nkZBW86y7Du8NjVWGpscCfNjFF3g== =QjE1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

8 8

RE: Why the White amendment is a good idea (fwd)
by Aaron Weissman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thursday, September 25, 1997 12:00 PM, Lizard [SMTP:lizard@dnai.com] wrote: > But to do that, you see, you'll need warrents, reasons for > suspiscion, and, becuase of the effort involved, you'll only do it > for serious crimes with a strong liklihood of conviction. *That* is > the 'stauts quo' law enforcement *claims* to want. and the technical realities of encryption, plus the limitations of any "NETCenter," will force a respect for, or at least compliance with, the 4th amendment. Hooray! Aaron

1 0