December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Plea from a parent who wants to keep their kid free of SSNs
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Declan McCullagh wrote: >The ACLU certainly deserves criticism for its knee-jerk left-wing >view on some issues. I'd also be interested in seeing them take a >stand on 2nd Amendment issues; right now they don't have a position, >as I understand it. But on free speech and SSN-type issues they're >generally good. The ACLU can be fairly criticized for their general sympathy to the causes of the Democratic Party. This would be acceptable if they were honest about it, but they are not. Likewise, while they may have no official position on the 2nd amendment, you will generally find members of the organization are staunchly opposed to it. Again, no real tragedy except that their advertising proclaims their organization is the only one in the United States devoted to protecting the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, it just isn't true. They protect the amendments they like and ignore or, in the case of the 2nd amendment, undermine the rest. Most people probably don't know how the ACLU is structured. There is a national organization and then a variety of state level chapters which have a great deal of autonomy. The chapters do a lot of the day to day work helping people who are getting severely screwed by their local governments. (There was a great case about ten years ago involving a state sponsored alcohol rehabilitation program. Once in, it was understood that participants wouldn't be allowed to leave for about 60 days so they could really dry out. It seems there was a little funding program and the facilities provided couldn't handle all the people who applied. So, they threw a bunch of the women in jail! The ACLU chapters handle cases like this all the time. They don't get much credit for it and nobody else does much of this work.) However, the chapters tend to be a little more squirrely than the national organization. Usually when you hear about some flaky case "The ACLU" was pushing, it will turn out that a chapter was behind it. About five years ago the Southern California chapter campaigned against California Proposition 165 because it would cut welfare benefits. A friend and ACLU member complained that this was not a civil liberties issue and they should not be campaigning for the Democratic Party. This letter came back: >Dear Mr. X, > >First, let me apologize for the lengthy delay in answering your >letter, which was recently referred to me from the National ACLU >office. > >You question whether the ACLU met its charter mandate to preserve >civil liberties when it opposed Prop. 165 on the ground that it would >adversely affect the poor. The ACLU-SC firmly believes that economic >justic and civil liberties are inextricably intertwined. Without the >assurance of basic economic security -- including jobs that pay a fair >living wage, adequate food, housing, and health care -- most people >cannot fully exercise their civil liberties and civil rights. > >This office has consistently opposed cuts in federal, state, or local >budgets that will adversely affect poor people who depend upon >governmental assistance to fulfill their basic needs. Poverty in the >United States is the result, to a great extent, of government policies >which favor privileged groups at the expense of the disadvantaged, and >which deprive the latter of opportunities to enjoy the full range of >rights guaranteed under the Constitution. > >Again, please accept my apology for not getting back to you sooner. > >Sincerely, > >J. Random Democrat >Associate Director While the ACLU is great in certain ways, so far as most cypherpunks are concerned I recommend considering them to be uncertain allies. It's sad. If they were truly a multi-partisan organization which was devoted to the Bill of Rights they would be many times more effective than they are currently. In principle there is no reason why the NRA and the ACLU shouldn't be the same organization except the membership of each brings too much baggage to the table. 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 iQEVAwUBNCxGwZaWtjSmRH/5AQHwDgf+Oqe8QSQFE/NjrtV5pyEsI/Tra2Z9oq8I j6Us0c03d7qeoFSDYcA3jyuGb2Zs8FSH9GuR8bJ/ZMjcBgfPLYgb+mXgBero6Uet MlTEabwU1gNau8Rz66FKY2T1aiM7u972RUYscUyKZYmh9qp+T3xPUJoNBSPj99fS jDinQd1AXZPOltB0NRrEXZInyPxwqKhRql9iQ5Azf8/r3DfxLgLWhj6gu2gd3+dw WdYfuo+qHX1afmbHVVQrhyHoNa1UjkhKmgt0Va5ddONlik+7PhUsi0hm9dU2UnRW hLZWOhoZaxrBc8BrT/43dLQFd1WinDAsYuN5CfSYT3L5o0oCCKvciA== =jqeP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Its working read this, give it a chance
by Pascal Mayani 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ouais c'est vieux comme le monde le principe: ca s'appelle une pyramide et il n'y a que le gars en haut qui se fait un sacre pactole. En plus c'est parfaitement illegal. And now, ladies & gentlemen, let's talk in english : Hello suckers of *intofild(a)aol.com*, This nice principle of sending money to the last name on a list through the INTERNET is the ultimate variation of the pyramidal game... First before carrying on with the demonstration, people should know that this kind of "gime your money you sucker, I'll know how to use it" is illegal in most industrial countries... You can't win for a very good reason. This game can be seen as a pyramid : The chief / | \ a few accomplices ////||||\\\\ suckers sending their money As you can see, the only people to earn money in the process are the one on the top of this pyramid, the others just send their money to the top of it and can hardly win a kopek. The idea is very simple, usually on the list, you'll find unknown people whom you would suppose to be some ordinary participants of the game, in fact in most cases they're the accomplices or the chief himself. The original situation: #1 accomplice 1 #2 accomplice 2 #3 accomplice 3 #4 chief You send five bucks to the chief... #1 you #2 accomplice 1 #3 accomplice 2 #4 accomplice 3 You send your money to accomplice 3 Now you ask twenty of your friends to do so: #1 one of your friend #2 you #3 accomplice 1 #4 accomplice 2 Now this people will ask friends of them to send money in their turn: #1 a friend'a friend #1 one of your friend #2 you #3 accomplice 1 They will send money to accomplice 1... This group of people, the accomplices and the chief will get: 20*20*20*20*5= $800 000 (And of course, it's could be more profitable, you can't know how many people answered at the first stage). If you hope to reach the fifth stage... Read the demonstration once again ! So don't be stupid, don't even send a peanut to these suckers...

2 1

Re: Remailer Attack
by Alex de Joode 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anonymous sez: : 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? Most remailers support a feature called 'latency', so one can choose the latency one desires for a message. ie: :: Anon-To: username(a)host-name-here.nl Latency: +00:00 This message will be remailed imediately, no queing etc. -- Alex de Joode | usura(a)SABOTAGE.ORG | http://www.sabotage.org Sabotage Internet: Your Internet Problem Provider.

1 0

Barksdale editorial
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Washington May Crash the Internet Economy By Jim Barksdale The U.S. computer industry is the envy of of the world. But it may not be long before we are asking ourselves: Why did we let our dominance in the software business slip away to competitors in other countries? That could well be the consequence of encryption legislation proposed by FBI Director Louis Freeh and supported by key congressional Republicans and members of the Clinton administration. Encryption is simply a mathematical way to scramble (encrypt) and unscramble (decrypt) digital information during transmission or storage. It is increasingly used to protect not just personal communications and medical and financial records, but also all the intellectual property businesses maintain on computer networks. Protecting this valuable information has become a highly competitive business around the globe, yet U.S. industry has been limited in how it can compete, because U.S.-based companies are not allowed to export anything stronger than 40-bit (or in some cases 56-bit) encryption. (The strength of encryption is largely a function of the length of its software "keys" measured in bits, the zeros and ones that comprise computer data.) Foreign producers, however, can distribute encryption products with 128-bit key length, so-called strong encryption, which is considered unbreakable by today's computing standards. The FBI has proposed to worsen this situation by also limiting the use of strong encryption in our domestic market. The FBI's proposal, in the form of the Oxley-Manton amendment to a House bill originally drafted to liberalize export controls on encryption, would require makers of encryption software to provide the government with immediate access to the information in a computer or network without the knowledge of the owner or user of the computer. We could still provide encryption products, but their value would be compromised considerably by a "backdoor" for law enforcement agencies to access information in the computer. We understand and share the FBI's concern about terrorists and other criminals using encryption to protect their activities from law enforcement surveillance, but the FBI proposal does not solve the problem. The criminals will still be able to buy advanced encryption technology outside the U.S., where it is freely available today. The encryption plan will cause bigger problems for law-abiding companies, however. We have some of the best software engineers on the planet at Netscape, but we simply do not believe it is possible to comply with the proposed FBI standard. If it became law, the federal government could put us in jail if we could not guarantee immediate access to data in everyone's computer. This could only result in having us remove valuable information security features from our products. But the Internet needs just the opposite: more security. As legal scholars have pointed out, the FBI proposal poses grave constitutional concerns. An additional problem is the likely result of the FBI plan: more crime. By taking away encryption as we know it today, the FBI proposal would expose computer users to assault by hackers intent on economic espionage, blackmail and public humiliation. At a recent congressional hearing, one witness testified that with $1 billion and 20 people using existing technology, he could efffectively shut down the nation's information infrastructure, including all computer, phone and banking networks. Another witness said he could do it for $100 million. The solution is to ensure that our public and private infrastructure is secured through strong encryption and other means. The FBI cannot catch every hacker. But there will be fewer and fewer of them trying to penetrate sensitive networks if those networks are adequately protected and communications secured through the use of strong encryption. Without the privacy and security that strong encryption guarantees, consumers and businesses will refrain from using the Internet, greatly damaging our economy. The Internet already contributes 1.5% to the U.S. gross national product. Estimates suggest the total value of goods and services traded over the Internet could reach $8 billion this year and $330 billion in five years. The U.S. holds an estimated 75% of the global software market and roughtly the same share of the global Internet economy, according to studies by the Global Internet Project, an international trade group. The FBI proposal, if adopted, could end this economic phenomenon overnight. The good news is that the House Commerce Committee voted against this proposal by 35-16 on Wednesday. However, similar amendments have already been approved in the House National Security and Intelligence committees. It's now up to the House Rules Committee-whose charman, Gerald Solomon (R., N.Y.), favors limiting encryption technology-to reconcile the votes of the five committees that have considered various forms of the bill. Perhaps most ominously, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the deputy Treasury secretary for financial crimes yesterday announced their support for the FBI's proposal. What we need instead is a voluntary approach, U.S. companies should continue to cooperate with law enforcement authorities in provideing technological expertise and emergency assistance. Because companies like mine are committed to dooing this, our country will be more secure. If government policies end our leadership in encryption technology, where will our law enforcement and national security officials turn for help? Mr. Barksdale is president and CEO of Netscape Communications Corp.

1 0

PARTY!
by Sandy Sandfort 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hi Folks, Here's an invitation to my latest and greatest costume party ever. Be there or be square. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ AREA 51+ PARTY ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Pleasure of Your Company is Cordially Requested at the: Third Occasional Anarcho-Dilettante Pick-Your-Own-Damned-There, Masquerade Ball, Talent Show And Halloween Rehearsal 7:00pm Saturday October 13--3:00am Sunday October 14 650 Kenwyn Road (at McKinley) Oakland, California Loads of things happened on October 18. We're not going to tell you which one to commemorate. That's up to you. Check out the birthdays and historical events listed below. Pick one or go with something else. Your call. But no matter what theme you pick, it IS a masquerade ball, so you MUST wear a costume (or at least a mask). NO EXCEPTIONS. (Please, adults only. We regret that our house is very unsuitable for children.) THE ENTERTAINMENT At 8:00pm there will be a Dance Recital featuring Rainbeau, Gracie, Tish and Blythe. You DO NOT want to miss this. At 9:00pm there will be a Guest Talent Show. If you can sing, dance, tell a joke or pull a rabbit out of a hat, we IMPLORE you to sign up for this featured event. There will be prizes! CALL FOR TAPES If you did not like the music at the previous parties, we encourage you to bring a tape. We will play them for thirty minutes or until those actually dancing revolt. The default music will be Digital Music Express Dance Music Channel (or 70's disco by dance floor request). DOOR PRIZES Around Midnight, there will be a drawing for valuable and/or unique Door Prizes. (You must be present to win.) COMESTIBLES There will be some snacks and soft drinks, but if you are really hungry, it might be a good idea to eat before you come. B.Y.O.B. (Smoke'em if ya got'em, but outside, please. the house is a smoke-free zone.) RSVP Whether or not you are planning to attend, we want to hear from you. Please give the hosts a call so we can plan on your presence OR absence. Invited guests may bring additional celebrants WITH PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE HOSTS. This means you must call a host and get permission for EACH of the people you intend to bring. The house is big, but it is possible to have too many attendees. YOUR HOSTS Head Anarchist in Charge, Sandy Sandfort 510-839-3441/sandfort(a)crl.com House Hosts with the Most, Gracie & Zarkov 510-832-2044/emyrt(a)aol.com Web page host Sameer Parekh and C2Net Software 510-547-3617/sameer(a)c2.net P.S. THERE WILL BE A LATE FEE OF 10 CENTS PER MINUTE FOR EACH MINUTE YOU ARRIVE AFTER 8:00PM. The party starts at 7:00, so you get an our for free. Late fees will be used to defray costs. (This is no joke. More than $100 was collected at each of the last two parties.) Pictures from the 2nd Occasional Masquerade Ball may be found at: http://www.c2.net/~sandy/web.htm OCTOBER 18 IN HISTORY This is "Any Way You Look at It" Day! On this day in 1961, Henri Matisse's painting, "Le Bateau" went on display in the Museum of Modern Art in New York City. For six days, nobody realized it was hanging upside down. 1842 - Samuel Finley Breese Morse, laid his first telegraph cable in New York Harbor between the Battery and Governor's Island. 1892 - The first long-distance telephone communication was established between the mayors of New York and Chicago. 1924 - The term "Four Horsemen" was used in a "New York Herald Tribune" article by columnist Grantland Rice. The referenced Four Horsemen were the backfield of the University of Notre Dame which had beaten Army, 13-7. 1935 - Victor record #25236 was recorded this day by Tommy Dorsey and his Orchestra. It would become one of the most familiar Big Band themes of all time: "I'm Getting Sentimental Over You". 1943 - The first broadcast of "Perry Mason" was presented on CBS Radio. In the 15-minute (Monday-Friday) shows, Perry was played by Barlett Robinson, Santos Ortega, Donald Briggs and John Larkin. Larkin played the role the longest and was reportedly very disappointed when Raymond Burr got the gig on TV (1957). 1944 - The epic book, "Forever Amber", was published. This historic-romance novel was written by Kathleen Windsor. Although the book was very popular among women between the ages of 12 and 24, it was considered scandalous to be seen reading it; a reaction that lasted at least another three decades. 1956 - Football commissioner Bert Bell turned thumbs down on the use of radio-equipped helmets by NFL quarterbacks. 1971 - The final issue of "Look" magazine was published. It had been a must-see publication every week for 34 years. 1977 - Reggie Jackson made history and earned the nickname, Mr. October. Regg-a-roo (as Howard Cosell called him) hit three home runs on three successive pitches leading the Yankees to an 8-4 thrashing of the LA Dodgers in Game 6 of the World Series. 1979 - Following extensive renovation to return Radio City Music Hall to the look and feel of its 1931 Art Deco glory, the venerable New York City theatre reopened. "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" was the first live presentation. 1983 - Kenny Rogers and Dolly Parton received some gold to add to their collections --for their smash, "Islands in the Stream". OCTOBER 18 BIRTHDAYS 1854 - Salomon Andree (explorer: ill-fated North Pole expedition) 1859 - Henri Bergson (Nobel prize-winning philosopher, author: Creative Evolution) 1898 - Lotte Lenya (Karoline Blamauer) (Tony Award-winning singer, actress: Threepenny Opera; From Russia with Love, Semi-Tough, Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone) 1902 - Miriam Hopkins (actress: The Children's Hour, The Chase, Carrie, Barbary Coast) 1906 - James Brooks (artist: Flight: 235 ft. mural at La Guardia National Airport, NY; abstract expressionist exhibit: Ninth Street Exhibition) 1918 - Bobby Troup (actor: Emergency; singer, musician, TV host: Stars of Jazz; married to singer, Julie London) 1919 - Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Prime Minister of Canada) 1925 - Melina Mercouri (actress: Never on Sunday, Once is Not Enough, Topkapi; Greece's Minister of Culture) 1926 - Chuck (Charles Edward Anderson) Berry (singer: Lifetime Achievement Grammy; Maybellene, Roll Over Beethoven, School Day, Rock & Roll Music, Sweet Little Sixteen, Johnny B. Goode, My Ding-A-Ling; in film: Rock, Rock, Rock) 1927 - George C. Scott (Academy Award-winning actor: Patton; Anatomy of a Murder, The Day of the Dolphin, The Hanging Tree, Taps, Oklahoma Crude, The Prince and the Pauper, The Murders in the Rue Morgue, Malice) 1928 - Keith Jackson (sportscaster: ABC Sports, Wide World of Sports) 1933 - Peter Boyle (Emmy Award-winning actor: The X-Files; Taxi Driver, While You were Sleeping, Young Frankenstein, Midnight Caller, From Here to Eternity [TV]) 1933 - Forrest Gregg (Pro Football Hall of Famer: Green Bay Packers offensive tackle: Super Bowl I, II; Dallas Cowboys: Super Bowl VI; head coach: Cleveland Browns, Cincinnati Bengals: AFC Coach of the Year [1981]: Super Bowl XVI; Green Bay Packers; Southern Methodist University Athletic Director) 1934 - Inger Stevens (Stensland) (actress: The Farmer's Daughter, Madigan, A Guide for the Married Man, Hang 'Em High) 1937 - Boyd Dowler (football: Green Bay Packers wide receiver: Super Bowl I, II) 1939 - Mike Ditka (Pro & College Football Hall of Famer: Chicago Bears Rookie of the Year; Philadelphia Eagles; Dallas Cowboys tight end: Super Bowl V, VI; Chicago Bears head coach: Super Bowl XX; TV sports analyst: NBC Sports) 1943 - Willie Horton (baseball: Detroit Tigers outfielder) 1947 - Laura Nyro (singer: Up on the Roof; songwriter: Wedding Bell Blues, Blowin' Away, And When I Die, Stoney End, Stoned Soul Picnic, Sweet Blindness, Eli's Coming, Time and Love, Save the Country) 1950 - Wendy Wasserstein (writer: The Heidi Chronicles, Bachelor Girls) 1951 - Pam Dawber (actress: Mork & Mindy, My Sister Sam) 1952 - Jerry Royster (baseball: LA Dodgers pitcher) 1960 - Jean Claude Van Damme (actor: Kickboxer, Universal Soldier, Double Impact, Hard Target, Nowhere to Run, Predator II) 1961 - Erin Moran (actress: Happy Days, Joanie Loves Chachi, The Don Rickles Show, Daktari, Galaxy of Terror, Twirl, Watermelon Man, How Sweet It Is!) 1961 - Wynton Marsalis (Grammy Award-winning musician: jazz/ classical trumpet: Think of One [1983]; played on: Father & Sons; in orchestra: Sweeney Todd; composer: TV theme song for Shannon's Deal) OCTOBER 18 CHART TOPPERS 1957 Chances Are/The Twelfth of Never - Johnny Mathis Jailhouse Rock - Elvis Presley Be-Bop Baby/Have I Told You Lately That I Love You - Ricky Nelson Wake Up Little Susie - The Everly Brothers 1965 Yesterday - The Beatles Treat Her Right - Roy Head You've Got Your Troubles - The Fortunes Behind the Tear - Sonny James 1973 Half-Breed - Cher Ramblin' Man - The Allman Brothers Band Angie - The Rolling Stones Ridin' My Thumb to Mexico - Johnny Rodriguez 1981 Arthur's Theme (Best that You Can Do) - Christopher Cross For Your Eyes Only - Sheena Easton Private Eyes - Daryl Hall and John Oates Step by Step - Eddie Rabbitt THIRD SATURDAY IN OCTOBER Sweetest Day Frabjous Day Ironman Triathalon MISC. Persons Day (Canada) St. Luke's Day (patron of doctors, painters, glassmakers, artists, butchers, notaries, sculptors) Festival of Poetic Terrorism Alaska Day Pandrosos (Greek all-refreshing Goddess) Great Horn Fair (Kent, UK) National Chocolate Cupcake Day Chile Independence Day No Beard Day Lukesmas International Credit Union Day Ivory Soap invented 1st Art school opened Sandblasting patented BBC Radio established (1922) H.E.W. banned cyclamates Brotherhood of the Cooperative Commonwealth founded (1895) Puerto Rico became US Colony (1898) Lincoln shaved off his beard Hi and Lois comic strip began (1954) Water Pollution Control Act passed (1972) XYZ Affair Citroen 2CV automobile introduced (1948) Roseanne debuted (1988) 1st War Crimes trial began (1945) Disney's Jungle Book premiered John Lennon and Yoko Ono arrested for marijuana possession (London; 1968) Rules of American Football 1st formulated (1873) US attacked Iranian oil rig in retaliation for gunboat attacks (1987) International Court of Justice at the Hague announced (1907) UK declared Canadian women to be "persons" (1929) Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes forcing many protestants (aka Huguenots) to flee France (1685) Teddy Roosevelt is ridiculed in the press for inviting black leader Booker T. Washington to the White House (1901) men to be "persons" (1929) Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes forcing many protestants (aka Huguenots) to flee France (1685) Teddy Roosevelt is ridiculed in the press for inviting black leader Booker T. Washington to the White House (1901)

1 0

Re: Technology center
by stuey 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>What I think they'll do is work on virus software. They can write >something which will hack the crypto on your PC and make it weak. >If they want to wiretap some drug dealer, they get him to download >one of their programs somehow. Maybe they've got a Java bug which >lets them hack files when he goes to a certain web page. Or maybe >they get him to download some free demo of a game or interaction >service (hotchicks.com) Whatever, the program actually looks for >PGP and other crypto software and hacks it. Now the FBI can read >his stuff. What we have here is a technology race. Assuming it is legal for a hypothetical government organization to pull a stunt like that, we merely build our own encryption software that is compatible with the current stuff, or failing that have an unreasonable amount of different publically available versions out there. Tell me what virus can alter 50 different programs in a different fashion and still be small enough to go unnoticed. If you were to program your own private version of PGP and have it produce output exactly the same as any version of PGP out there you wanted to, then there's a good chance that it would be overlooked by viri, logic bombs, trojans... and even if it wasn't there's an even better chance that a specific virus would need to be written to hack your private version. and what are the odds of actually infecting your particular desktop with the naughty program that's gonna do the dirty work? I admit that would take cnsiderable effort and the only reason for doing so is to protect against thief software designed to steal your keys, but it can be done. and probably would be done by many as a last resort / defense. -Stu "Work toward your vision of tomorrow, or you will surely live in someone else's" -- Art Sackett

2 1

Re: Exports and criminalizing crypto
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[lot of snipping] Adam Back <aba(a)dcs.ex.ac.uk> writes: > > John Smith <jsmith58(a)hotmail.com> writes: > > > > That's easy for you to say, there in England. You don't have these > > export controls, right? > > We have different export controls. You can export what you want > electronically right now. And, so I hear, the exporter is defined as > the person who downloads from your web site, so lots of hits from Iraq > is no problem. Start to talk about tangible things and you require a > license. > Adam This is my favorite example of the Kafka-esque absurdity of export controls >From England, I can export strong crypto electronically with no problem. The same crypto, printed as source code, is restricted. >From the US, I can export printed strong crypto with no problem. The same crypto, in electronic form, is export restricted. Both sides claim to have a rational, well-thought out policy. Peter Trei

1 0

New Member Registration
by somebody＠somewhere.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A Message From Mr. T Account Login: killer Account Password: instinct This message has been auto-generated - No need to reply

1 0

Congress to compromise away crypto-rights, from ComDaily
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[From ComDaily, a Washington trade publication. --Declan] --- Markey/White Prevails HOUSE PANEL APPROVES ENCRYPTION BILL IN REBUFF TO CLINTON, FBI [...] Rules Committee Chmn. Solomon (R-N.Y.) originally had co-sponsored bill, then dropped off and urged rejection of Goodlatte measure, declaring it harmful to national security. He said in letter to Commerce Committee members that bill wouldn't get to House floor unless it includes provisions with "crucial key recovery language" similar to those in Oxley-Manton proposals and in Intelligence Committee. Spokesman said that while Rules panel could send any version it wished to floor, Solomon wants to try to work out compromise that recognizes national security concerns. Panel spokesman said Goodlatte should "be more flexible and work out" differences with Intelligence Committee. Intelligence Chmn. Goss (R-Fla.) also is on Rules Committee. House Telecom Subcommittee Chmn. Tauzin (R-La.), who had tried to find compromise before markup, said after evening session that there would have to be more compromises. He proposed amendment to set up 5-member commission that would have 180 days to study encryption and make recommendations. Tauzin said that "something will have to be worked out that satisfies law enforcement." He said "we're not finished" with bill, said it was possible that study proposal could emerge as compromise if no other agreement could be reached: "Just like there's no predicting where the technology will be, there's no predicting where this will end up." [...] Oxley said Thurs. his amendment lost because: "The Commerce Committee was being the Commerce Committee." In protecting its jurisdiction, with eye toward electronic commerce, legislators paid attention to computer industry, including Gates, he said. However, he said "the bill isn't going anywhere" unless law enforcement and national security concerns are addressed. Oxley said he hadn't asked Solomon to hold up legislation, noting that Intelligence and National Security panel bills have provisions "stronger than mine." [...] ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0

USA Today on encryption; FBI's Louis Freeh responds
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------- Subject: USA Today/Freeh Date: Fri, 26 Sep 1997 09:08:05 -0400 From: Dave Banisar <banisar(a)epic.org> USA TODAY Our View September 26, 1997 Computer privacy at risk if FBI gets the codes Thinking about protecting your computer files with high-quality encryption? Well, act fast. The FBI is out to stop you. Not only will you get less security if the agency gets its way, but you'll pay more for software to protect your personal financial, medical and other records. Until now, restrictions on good encryption technology have covered only exports. But the agency wants to outlaw the making, sale and distribution here of all codes it can't break. It would require any firm offering such programs to hand decoding keys over to third parties so the FBI and other agencies could get hold of them without your knowledge. It's the electronic equivalent of demanding that Americans put copies of all their records in some federal depository. One House committee has passed the FBI plan. Another committee failed this week to insert it in a bill aimed at lifting export curbs. But more attempts are sure. The FBI says encryption controls are for your security. Otherwise, drug lords and terrorists can hide behind strong encryption to evade the law. In fact, lack of powerful encryption programs is leaving the vast majority of Americans far less secure. That's because of the existing restriction on exports. U.S. software and computer makers find it too costly to make one product for here and another for export. So, they don't provide the best encryption possible. The Justice Department reports computer security breaches cost U.S. business and consumers $ 7 billion a year. And domestic software and computer makers are losing sales to foreign firms. Estimated price tag by 2000: $ 60 billion a year, 240,000 jobs. Domestic limits would only add costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that buyers will pay $ 5 to $ 10 more for software, up to $ 2 billion a year, to implement the FBI's system. And 11 of the world's top cryptographers in May warned that the FBI plan creates targets for criminals by establishing centers where billions of secrets are held. And for what? Smart crooks easily can evade police efforts by using unbreakable foreign encryption available over the Internet or by removing incriminating evidence by pressing their computer's delete key. The National Research Council, in an 18-month study for Congress, suggested a better course for government to meet everyone's security concerns: -- Provide law enforcement money to study surveillance alternatives. -- Ease the curb on encryption exports. -- Leave domestic encryption alone. In plain, unencrypted text: Don't stop Americans from protecting themselves. ---------------------------------------------- USA TODAY Let law keep weapons Louis J. Freeh In this time of electronic commerce, e-mail and private information routinely stored in computers, the availability of powerful encryption is essential. No one in law enforcement disputes that. All of law enforcement is also in total agreement on one aspect of encryption: The widespread use of uncrackable encryption will devastate our ability to fight crime and prevent terrorism. It will render two of our most important investigative techniques, court-ordered electronic surveillance and search and seizure, a nullity in many instances. Without a balanced approach that accommodates commercial interests, privacy and public safety concerns, criminals and terrorists will be able to shield themselves from court orders used to obtain critical evidence and prevent the worst crimes. How important are the techniques? Law enforcement used electronic surveillance to disrupt terrorists mixing bombs to blow up buildings and assassinate political figures. A computer was used to store evidence of a plot to blow up 11 U.S. airline flights. Police use electronic surveillance to combat drugs, gang violence and kidnapping. Indeed, state and local law enforcement authorities account for 50% of all the electronic surveillance court orders in the United States. These are what will be lost if, despite valid court orders, law enforcement is unable to decrypt that which criminals have encrypted. We are not asking that advances in encryption be abandoned or that privacy rights be threatened. Nor are we asking for any increase in law enforcement's authority to intercept people's conversations. We only ask that the careful balance of the Fourth Amendment not be inadvertently tipped in favor of criminals and terrorists in the rush to satisfy the marketplace. Many companies are urging Congress to let them determine the extent to which public safety is protected and have expressed a desire that government be more sympathetic to their commercial needs. These potential life-and-death issues are too important to leave solely to market forces that respond to important but unrelated interests. Good and sound public policy decisions must be made now by Congress. We remain hopeful that, as legislation is crafted, it will not ignore the pleas of law enforcement but instead will preserve that careful balance that has been so meticulously maintained for the past 200 years. Louis J. Freeh is director of the FBI. ------------------------- Declan McCullagh Time Inc. The Netly News Network Washington Correspondent http://netlynews.com/

1 0