December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

McAfee on KRAP
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Old press release from McAfee boasting Key Recovery Alliance membership: MCAFEE JOINS KEY RECOVERY ALLIANCE; MULTI-VENDOR GROUP TO CREATE INTERNATIONAL STANDARD FOR RECOVERY OF ENCRYPTION KEYS Key Recovery Alliance to Develop Solutions Which Balance the Needs of End- Users, Employers, and International Governments SANTA CLARA, CALIF. (December 12, 1996) -- McAfee (Nasdaq: MCAF), a leading vendor of network security and management software, today announced that it has joined the Key Recovery Alliance, a coalition of encryption software vendors who have joined together to promote international specifications for encrypted information. "As a member of the Alliance, McAfee will work to create an internationally recognized and widely available standard for trusted key recovery," said Dan Freedman, vice president of security products at McAfee. "Trusted key recovery enables the responsible deployment of encryption technologies worldwide, while addressing the valid interests and security requirements of end-users, employers, and government." McAfee recently extended its family of network security products with the introduction of three new encryption solutions. These solutions include PCCrypto for encryption of desktop computer files and electronic mail; WebCrypto for the encryption of Internet email; and NetCrypto for transparent encryption of all communications over TCP/IP networks such as corporate intranets and the Internet. The Key Recovery Alliance was formed in October, and is composed of approximately 40 different network security vendors who have joined to cooperate on the development and promotion of internationally-accepted standards for encryption key recovery. Encryption keys are the codes that unlock encrypted information. Encryption key recovery refers to the necessary ability to recover lost or damaged encryption keys. Common situations in which encryption key recovery would be needed include when the death or departure of an employee who maintained mission-critical encrypted information causes the encryption key to be lost; when an encryption key becomes damaged due to a hard disk crash; or when a court order warrants the decryption of computer-based evidence. Company Background Founded in 1989, McAfee is a leading worldwide vendor of Network Security and Management products for enterprise networks. The Company is also a leader in Internet and Web-based electronic software distribution. McAfee is adquartered in Santa Clara, California and can be reached by phone at (408) 988-3832 or by fax at (408) 970-9727. McAfee's Web address is http://www.mcafee.com.

1 0

Re: Locked Up and Barred From Net
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This article touches on several Cypherpunks themes and technologies, including: use of anonymous remailers, mandatory Web content filters, bans on encryption, and bomb-making instructions. True, the persons being affected here are prisoners and parolees, and prisoners obviously are lacking certain civil liberties. Parollees, too. (Whether those convicted of felonies or even lesser crimes should be denied civil liberties after their sentence has been completed is a troubling issue I won't get into right now.) But as more and more things are declared criminal, and as selective prosecution is becoming the norm, these increasing restrictions may affect a larger fraction of the population. And, I think, the attitude here toward paroled convicts gives us some hints about the application of the Four Horsemen arguments in general. --Tim May > From http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/8854.html > > Twice Removed: Locked Up and Barred from Net > by Steve Silberman > 4:57am 3.Dec.97.PST > > When US District Court Judge Sam Sparks sent Chris Lamprecht to the > Federal Correctional Institution in Bastrop, Texas, in 1995, the > 24-year-old hacker sobbed before the bench. A stint in the federal pen > was terrifying enough, but the judge had tacked an unusual condition onto > his 70-month sentence. Though Lamprecht was being sent to Bastrop for > money laundering - not the hacking that earned him the handle "Minor > Threat" - Judge Sparks stipulated that Lamprecht was forbidden to access > the Internet until 2003. > > "I told the judge computers were my life," Lamprecht recalled. > > Any case that involves computers and a boyish, fair-skinned defendant is > bound to get press, but things have changed since Swing magazine > (http://www.paranoia.com/~mthreat/swing.html) billed Lamprecht as "the > first person to be officially exiled from cyberspace." If the young > hacker was the first to be exiled from the online world by law, he now has > plenty of company, following the circulation of an internal memo at the > Federal Bureau of Prisons last year, which set in stone a federal policy > of keeping prisoners - and even many parolees - offline. > > According to the federal view, logging on is simply incompatible with > incarceration. As chief bureau spokesman Todd Craig states, in > bureaucratese, "Access to the Internet is not a necessary tool for the > correctional process" - which means that with more than 1.6 million > people locked up in the United States alone, and thousands of parolees > subject to similar restrictions even as they attempt to rejoin modern > life, a significant population is being left behind by the network > revolution. > > What's at stake? As more and more jobs are wired into the Net and the > Web, the possibility that former offenders will be able to find > employment after incarceration becomes more and more remote - which > undermines the very bedrock of the correctional process, asserts Jenni > Gainsborough, spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union's > National Prison Project (http://www.npp.org) > > "The aim of our prisons should be to release people who are able to > reintegrate themselves into society," she explains. "But no politician > wants to appear soft on crime. Nobody thinks about what's actually useful > to reduce the recidivism rate." > > A poster boy for keeping prisons unwired > > Mention the words prisoner and Internet in a sentence, and the same > object-lesson will come up over and over again: the case of George > Chamberlain, a sex offender incarcerated at Lino Lakes state prison in > Minnesota, who used his position as manager of computer services for a > venture called Insight Inc. to download child pornography from the Net > while sitting in jail. > > Chamberlain was a poster boy for keeping prisoners as far away from a > modem as possible. He not only siphoned 287 erotic images off the Net and > encrypted them on an optical drive behind the pass phrase "They cannot > commit me," he also compiled lists of thousands of children's' names, and > chitchatted with other pornographers through an anonymous remailer. > > "The idea that a prisoner had this kind of access to the Internet and was > able to collect explicit child pornography and communicate with others on > how to hide it," US Attorney David Lillehaug declared last March, "is > almost unbelievable." > > The Chamberlain case seemed all too believable, however, given a > statement issued by the US Parole Commission just three months earlier. > The commission, "responding to increased criminal use of the Internet," > approved "discretionary use of special conditions of parole that would > impose tight restrictions on the use of computers by certain high-risk > parolees." > > A spokesperson for the Parole Commission declined to answer questions > about the number of parolees currently subject to restrictions on > computer use, which include a ban on encryption, screening of online > activity by monitoring or blocking software, compulsory daily logging of > all Web sites visited, and unannounced searches of drives and disks by > parole officers. > > Federal Bureau of Prisons spokesman Craig equates the ban on computer use > by inmates to restrictions on use of the telephone. "They can make > 15-minute calls to pre-approved numbers, like family and clergy," Craig > says. It would be impossible, he says, to pre-approve forays into the > online world in the same way. > > In its press release, the commission said it acted "after noting the > surge of 'how-to' information available on the Internet and other > computer online services relating to such offenses as child molestation, > hate crimes, and the illegal use of explosives." > > "That's complete BS," charges Stanton McCandlish, program director for the > Electronic Frontier Foundation. "There was no alarming increase in that > kind of 'how-to' information on the Net. There was an increase in > publicity about politicians like Dianne Feinstein > (http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/bombstmt.html) who used those fears as > justification to limit use of the Internet." > > McCandlish points out that last June's Reno v. ACLU decision > (http://www.aclu.org/court/renovacludec.html) by the Supreme Court sent a > message that the court considers the Net as much subject to First > Amendment speech protections as the printed word. Comparing broad > prohibitions on the use of computers by prisoners and parolees to banning > the act of writing by those in prison, McCandlish predicts that "the issue > is going to heat up" in the coming year. The EFF is "waiting for a good, > solid legal challenge" to arise before getting involved in a case, > McCandlish says. > > The world's best-kept secrets > > A small California businessman named John Danes runs an outfit called > Inmate.com, charging prisoners US$70 to design and maintain a personal > homepage (http://inmate.com/inmates.htm) and an email address for three > months. Each week, Danes prints out the incoming mail, peruses it for > forbidden content like pornography or communication from minors, and > forwards it to the inmates via snail mail. At present, nearly 70 male > prisoners and three women have homepages at Inmate.com. The majority of > the inmates are black or Hispanic; several of the pages maintain the > author's innocence; many are an invitation to romance. > > Ironically, the ACLU's Gainsborough attributes some of the public's fear > about convicted criminals having a gateway to the Net to the publicity > given to Web sites like Inmate.com and Dead Man Talkin' > (http://monkey.hooked.net/moneky/m/hut/deadman/deadman.html) - sites that > are put up by friends of prisoners who do not themselves have access. > > "Serial-killer homepages and prisoner sites contribute to the public > perception that there's a huge use of the Net by these people to > advertise their evil ideas," Gainsborough says, while affirming her > support for the right of prisoners to express themselves. > > One page on the Inmate.com site asks, "Have you ever wondered what it's > like to live in another world right here on Earth? What would you do if > you suddenly fell from grace? Prisons hold some of the world's best-kept > secrets." Secrets are one thing, Gainsborough observes, that prisoners > are not allowed to keep. > > "In many prisons, even [typewriters with built-in memory] are forbidden," > she says. "There's always this fear of prisoners hiding this stuff away - > so the idea of computers where people could really keep stuff hidden is > very frightening." > > In July 1996, a promising computer-training program at the Washington > State Reformatory was terminated when it appeared that the prisoners were > learning too much about computers - that is, more than prison officials > knew. > > Mike Williams, associate superintendent at the reformatory, was head of > security for the program, which was a pilot for a statewide effort that > would have allowed prisoners to learn how to use business software like > Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint, and Word. > > "The inmates learned a lot of good stuff," Williams acknowledges. "They > were able to learn a trade while in prison, so that they might have been > actually able to get a job in that area when they got out. This was like > real-world vocational training." > > So why was the innovative program scrapped, rather than ported to every > jailhouse in the state? > > "Our superintendent thought it was a manageable pilot program," Williams > recalls, "but the key figures who needed to approve it up in Olympia > decided to put an end to it. We had inmates learning more about computers > than we had staff time to keep an eye on them. We couldn't keep up with > them." > > The fear that prisoners would use encryption or other electronic means to > cloak escape plans was a chief concern. "It was a cat-and-mouse game. We > had to load the software for them, and there was no money allocated to > hire more officers to do that kind of thing," Williams says. Though at > least one inmate claims that graduates of the program had landed good > jobs upon release, state deputy director of prisons Jim Blodgett - one of > the "key figures" in the state capital who decided to shut the gate on > the pilot effort - told a reporter, "We couldn't see the value in keeping > it. We had staff not knowing what was going on." > > If the object of incarceration is to ensure that prisoners remain at > least as ignorant of current technologies as untrained prison staff, the > federal policy will be deemed a success. But as the Net touches every > area of our experience - from our most intimate relationships to our > responsibilities as participants in a democratic society - more and more > of those on the outside of the bars are coming to feel, with Lamprecht, > that "computers are our lives," or are inextricably linked with our > lives. > > And those on the inside are destined to be released into a life for which > they are even more unprepared than former offenders were in the past. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Minor Threat's Web Site http://www.paranoia.com/~mthreat/ > Official Kevin Mitnick Web Site http://www.kevinmitnick.com -- The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

another mixmaster source branch
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone with a export controlled web site in the US like to give home to Rich Salz's mixmaster re-write? Adam ------- Start of forwarded message ------- Date: Fri, 5 Dec 1997 13:28:32 -0500 (EST) From: Rich Salz <rsalz(a)opengroup.org> To: coderpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Take my mixmaster source Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-coderpunks(a)toad.com Precedence: bulk A long time ago, Lance graciously gave me a copy of his mixmaster source. I ended up doing a line-by-line rewrite, splitting it into different executables, FSF configure'ing it, etc. I'm not going to have time to finish it. There is one bug that I know of, an off-by-one error in decoding multi-hop messages. If you would like fame and fortune and a somewhat interesting debugging problem, and you're inside the US or Canada, please send me email. I would like to see this code get released, and used. Thanks. ------- End of forwarded message -------

2 1

No Subject
by bureau42 Anonymous Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Something that I have found irritating about the posts by > non-persistent identities is that it isn't possible to support a > meaningful discussion as previous statements can always be repudiated, > or maybe even weren't made by the particular poster. I compared this > to sound bites. And Tim do I know how you hate sound bites. Look at it this way: no identity is persistent, signed or not. All just varying degrees. Maybe all we *ever* had was sound bites, but the closer proximities and smaller networks of the past made them seem more dynamic than they really were.

1 0

Re: Locked Up and Barred From Net
by TruthMonger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It has long been known that the artists, the lunatics and the criminal element in society are a harbinger of the future. What is less known is that the way society deals with them is also a harbinger of the future. Supporting Nazi Fascist Oppressors who campaign under slogans that share the underlying theme "Tough On the 'Other Guy'" can be a very tempting prospect. Waking up to find that *you* have been officially declared "The 'Other Guy'" is not uncommon, however. NEWS FLASH!!! When John Law enforces that "Tough on Crime" law that you supported, he is not going to risk his butt by going after armed felons such as Tim May, as you had intended. He is going to go after unarmed felons who supported the new laws, little realizing that they, themselves, were "Felons under an increasing number of laws." (Don't bother to check the archives. I said that first. Trust me.) TruthMonger Tim May wrote: > > This article touches on several Cypherpunks themes and technologies, > including: use of anonymous remailers, mandatory Web content filters, bans > on encryption, and bomb-making instructions. > > True, the persons being affected here are prisoners and parolees, and > prisoners obviously are lacking certain civil liberties. Parollees, too. > (Whether those convicted of felonies or even lesser crimes should be > denied civil liberties after their sentence has been completed is a > troubling issue I won't get into right now.) > > But as more and more things are declared criminal, and as selective > prosecution is becoming the norm, these increasing restrictions may affect > a larger fraction of the population. > > And, I think, the attitude here toward paroled convicts gives us some > hints about the application of the Four Horsemen arguments in general. > > --Tim May > > > From http://www.wired.com/news/news/culture/story/8854.html > > > > Twice Removed: Locked Up and Barred from Net > > by Steve Silberman > > 4:57am 3.Dec.97.PST > > > > When US District Court Judge Sam Sparks sent Chris Lamprecht to the > > Federal Correctional Institution in Bastrop, Texas, in 1995, the > > 24-year-old hacker sobbed before the bench. A stint in the federal pen > > was terrifying enough, but the judge had tacked an unusual condition onto > > his 70-month sentence. Though Lamprecht was being sent to Bastrop for > > money laundering - not the hacking that earned him the handle "Minor > > Threat" - Judge Sparks stipulated that Lamprecht was forbidden to access > > the Internet until 2003. > > > > "I told the judge computers were my life," Lamprecht recalled. > > > > Any case that involves computers and a boyish, fair-skinned defendant is > > bound to get press, but things have changed since Swing magazine > > (http://www.paranoia.com/~mthreat/swing.html) billed Lamprecht as "the > > first person to be officially exiled from cyberspace." If the young > > hacker was the first to be exiled from the online world by law, he now has > > plenty of company, following the circulation of an internal memo at the > > Federal Bureau of Prisons last year, which set in stone a federal policy > > of keeping prisoners - and even many parolees - offline. > > > > According to the federal view, logging on is simply incompatible with > > incarceration. As chief bureau spokesman Todd Craig states, in > > bureaucratese, "Access to the Internet is not a necessary tool for the > > correctional process" - which means that with more than 1.6 million > > people locked up in the United States alone, and thousands of parolees > > subject to similar restrictions even as they attempt to rejoin modern > > life, a significant population is being left behind by the network > > revolution. > > > > What's at stake? As more and more jobs are wired into the Net and the > > Web, the possibility that former offenders will be able to find > > employment after incarceration becomes more and more remote - which > > undermines the very bedrock of the correctional process, asserts Jenni > > Gainsborough, spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union's > > National Prison Project (http://www.npp.org) > > > > "The aim of our prisons should be to release people who are able to > > reintegrate themselves into society," she explains. "But no politician > > wants to appear soft on crime. Nobody thinks about what's actually useful > > to reduce the recidivism rate." > > > > A poster boy for keeping prisons unwired > > > > Mention the words prisoner and Internet in a sentence, and the same > > object-lesson will come up over and over again: the case of George > > Chamberlain, a sex offender incarcerated at Lino Lakes state prison in > > Minnesota, who used his position as manager of computer services for a > > venture called Insight Inc. to download child pornography from the Net > > while sitting in jail. > > > > Chamberlain was a poster boy for keeping prisoners as far away from a > > modem as possible. He not only siphoned 287 erotic images off the Net and > > encrypted them on an optical drive behind the pass phrase "They cannot > > commit me," he also compiled lists of thousands of children's' names, and > > chitchatted with other pornographers through an anonymous remailer. > > > > "The idea that a prisoner had this kind of access to the Internet and was > > able to collect explicit child pornography and communicate with others on > > how to hide it," US Attorney David Lillehaug declared last March, "is > > almost unbelievable." > > > > The Chamberlain case seemed all too believable, however, given a > > statement issued by the US Parole Commission just three months earlier. > > The commission, "responding to increased criminal use of the Internet," > > approved "discretionary use of special conditions of parole that would > > impose tight restrictions on the use of computers by certain high-risk > > parolees." > > > > A spokesperson for the Parole Commission declined to answer questions > > about the number of parolees currently subject to restrictions on > > computer use, which include a ban on encryption, screening of online > > activity by monitoring or blocking software, compulsory daily logging of > > all Web sites visited, and unannounced searches of drives and disks by > > parole officers. > > > > Federal Bureau of Prisons spokesman Craig equates the ban on computer use > > by inmates to restrictions on use of the telephone. "They can make > > 15-minute calls to pre-approved numbers, like family and clergy," Craig > > says. It would be impossible, he says, to pre-approve forays into the > > online world in the same way. > > > > In its press release, the commission said it acted "after noting the > > surge of 'how-to' information available on the Internet and other > > computer online services relating to such offenses as child molestation, > > hate crimes, and the illegal use of explosives." > > > > "That's complete BS," charges Stanton McCandlish, program director for the > > Electronic Frontier Foundation. "There was no alarming increase in that > > kind of 'how-to' information on the Net. There was an increase in > > publicity about politicians like Dianne Feinstein > > (http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/bombstmt.html) who used those fears as > > justification to limit use of the Internet." > > > > McCandlish points out that last June's Reno v. ACLU decision > > (http://www.aclu.org/court/renovacludec.html) by the Supreme Court sent a > > message that the court considers the Net as much subject to First > > Amendment speech protections as the printed word. Comparing broad > > prohibitions on the use of computers by prisoners and parolees to banning > > the act of writing by those in prison, McCandlish predicts that "the issue > > is going to heat up" in the coming year. The EFF is "waiting for a good, > > solid legal challenge" to arise before getting involved in a case, > > McCandlish says. > > > > The world's best-kept secrets > > > > A small California businessman named John Danes runs an outfit called > > Inmate.com, charging prisoners US$70 to design and maintain a personal > > homepage (http://inmate.com/inmates.htm) and an email address for three > > months. Each week, Danes prints out the incoming mail, peruses it for > > forbidden content like pornography or communication from minors, and > > forwards it to the inmates via snail mail. At present, nearly 70 male > > prisoners and three women have homepages at Inmate.com. The majority of > > the inmates are black or Hispanic; several of the pages maintain the > > author's innocence; many are an invitation to romance. > > > > Ironically, the ACLU's Gainsborough attributes some of the public's fear > > about convicted criminals having a gateway to the Net to the publicity > > given to Web sites like Inmate.com and Dead Man Talkin' > > (http://monkey.hooked.net/moneky/m/hut/deadman/deadman.html) - sites that > > are put up by friends of prisoners who do not themselves have access. > > > > "Serial-killer homepages and prisoner sites contribute to the public > > perception that there's a huge use of the Net by these people to > > advertise their evil ideas," Gainsborough says, while affirming her > > support for the right of prisoners to express themselves. > > > > One page on the Inmate.com site asks, "Have you ever wondered what it's > > like to live in another world right here on Earth? What would you do if > > you suddenly fell from grace? Prisons hold some of the world's best-kept > > secrets." Secrets are one thing, Gainsborough observes, that prisoners > > are not allowed to keep. > > > > "In many prisons, even [typewriters with built-in memory] are forbidden," > > she says. "There's always this fear of prisoners hiding this stuff away - > > so the idea of computers where people could really keep stuff hidden is > > very frightening." > > > > In July 1996, a promising computer-training program at the Washington > > State Reformatory was terminated when it appeared that the prisoners were > > learning too much about computers - that is, more than prison officials > > knew. > > > > Mike Williams, associate superintendent at the reformatory, was head of > > security for the program, which was a pilot for a statewide effort that > > would have allowed prisoners to learn how to use business software like > > Microsoft Excel, PowerPoint, and Word. > > > > "The inmates learned a lot of good stuff," Williams acknowledges. "They > > were able to learn a trade while in prison, so that they might have been > > actually able to get a job in that area when they got out. This was like > > real-world vocational training." > > > > So why was the innovative program scrapped, rather than ported to every > > jailhouse in the state? > > > > "Our superintendent thought it was a manageable pilot program," Williams > > recalls, "but the key figures who needed to approve it up in Olympia > > decided to put an end to it. We had inmates learning more about computers > > than we had staff time to keep an eye on them. We couldn't keep up with > > them." > > > > The fear that prisoners would use encryption or other electronic means to > > cloak escape plans was a chief concern. "It was a cat-and-mouse game. We > > had to load the software for them, and there was no money allocated to > > hire more officers to do that kind of thing," Williams says. Though at > > least one inmate claims that graduates of the program had landed good > > jobs upon release, state deputy director of prisons Jim Blodgett - one of > > the "key figures" in the state capital who decided to shut the gate on > > the pilot effort - told a reporter, "We couldn't see the value in keeping > > it. We had staff not knowing what was going on." > > > > If the object of incarceration is to ensure that prisoners remain at > > least as ignorant of current technologies as untrained prison staff, the > > federal policy will be deemed a success. But as the Net touches every > > area of our experience - from our most intimate relationships to our > > responsibilities as participants in a democratic society - more and more > > of those on the outside of the bars are coming to feel, with Lamprecht, > > that "computers are our lives," or are inextricably linked with our > > lives. > > > > And those on the inside are destined to be released into a life for which > > they are even more unprepared than former offenders were in the past. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Minor Threat's Web Site http://www.paranoia.com/~mthreat/ > > Official Kevin Mitnick Web Site http://www.kevinmitnick.com > > -- > The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography > ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- > Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, > ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero > W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, > Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. > "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: SynData/Schneier Attack Network Associates
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wes, below's the full article and source. You can reach Bruce via http://www.counterpane.com. 4 December 1997, PRNewswire: Right to Privacy for Sale in Cyberspace; SynData Technologies Inc. Speaks Out Against Key Recovery Cedar Grove, N.J. -- SynData Technologies Inc., a provider of encryption software solutions, released a statement today condemning Network Associates Inc., the market leader for virus protection software products, for supporting the government's key recovery program. Network Associates Inc., formerly known as McAfee Associates Inc., recently purchased Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) for $36 million, an encryption software provider. PGP had historically been opposed to key recovery. "It is time to seriously consider the threat that Network Associates poses to the individual's constitutional right to privacy," said David Romanoff, CEO of SynData Technologies Inc. "While Network Associates claims to protect privacy in cyberspace, they have actually traded our right to privacy for a shot at increased revenues overseas by supporting the key recovery program. The slippery slope has begun right under our noses. It's time to challenge both the government and companies who support the government's key recovery program before it is too late." The United States Commerce Department does not allow US encryption software makers to export strong encryption without a key recovery program. Companies who do not believe in the government's key recovery program are forced to develop both export and domestic versions of their software, each with a different strength. "The government's key recovery program is a complete violation of the individual's right to privacy and, in fact, compromises of the system are already taking place. This shows that key escrow is an untenable policy," said Bruce Schneier, one of the world's leading authorities on encryption and author of the book "Applied Cryptography". "SynData is paving the way for other software developers by taking a stand in opposition to the government and companies like Network Associates." SynData Technologies does not believe in key recovery or other government involvement in the regulation of the encryption software industry. The company also believes that the current export curbs on encryption put the entire industry at a competitive disadvantage. Additionally, these policies undermine the security of the global marketplace and put the individual's right to privacy at risk. SynData Technologies Inc., based in Cedar Grove, New Jersey, unveiled their flagship encryption software product, SynCrypt, in September of this year. SynCrypt is available directly from SynData Technologies, 800-499-1469, and through downloads from the company's Website: www.syncrypt.com. -----

1 0

Forwarded mail...
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 4 Dec 1997 20:59:08 +0100 (MET) > From: nobody(a)REPLAY.COM (Anonymous) > Subject: Re: words have value, for good or ill > The speech I am talking about is the kind of things which Tim May has > been writing. To keep things simple, let's consider the statement > "McVeigh did the right thing." It is not a contract. It is not a > threat. It is not copyrighted. Actualy it is copyrighted the moment he hits the keystrokes and they appear in the buffer. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Get out of town Freeh!
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A cute cartoon from my friends down the hall: http://www.allpolitics.com/1997/12/05/mitchell/

1 0

Microsoft and DoJ attorneys battle in Federal court today
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

************ http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/afternoon/0,1012,1616,00.html Microsoft vs. DOJ Update Microsoft finally had its day (or at least two hours) in court this afternoon. Its team of lawyers tried to fend off accusations that Microsoft unfairly used its operating system's popularity to force-feed Internet Explorer to computer makers. Federal judge Thomas Penfield Jackson zeroed in on whether or not the browser is, in fact, part of Windows 95. "Are you not selling Windows 95 and Internet Explorer separately?" he asked. Not to computer manufacturers, carefully replied Microsoft's attorney, who said that the evidence proves the two products "obviously are" integrated. (For the judge to rule that Microsoft is violating a 1995 agreement, Justice Department lawyers first have to convince him that Internet Explorer and Windows 95 are two seperate products, which they tried to do today by waving around a shrinkwrapped copy of Internet Explorer 4.0.) The hearing in Washington, D.C., federal district court highlighted two wildly different views: Microsoft claims the Justice Department is picking a fight where none really should exist. But the government's antitrust lawyers said today they're fighting to stop the world's largest software company from "misusing its Windows power" to squash its competitors. Both sides are going to have to wait a while: Judge Jackson left the courtroom today without ruling on the case. --By Declan McCullagh/Washington

1 0

Singapore & Freedom
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, J. Lasser wrote: >And Singapore survives quite well being a totalitarian >capitalist society. Sure, you can pick nits and claim that >Singapore's not entirely capitalist, but it's more capitalist >than this country and certainly less free, too. > http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/editorial/0,1012,266,00.html >In some ways, Singaporeans are more free than U.S. citizens. >Income taxes and sales taxes are lower. Prostitution is legal. >The government does not impose rules on whom private landlords >can and can't rent to. Unlike some cities in the states, >Singapore has no curfews. Being able to walk outside safely at >night in any area of the city, even the poor excuse for the >city's red light district, has its attractions. > -Declan I lived and worked in Singapore for 8 years. Singapore is not what I call a free society. Their system has many advantages, you are pretty much free to make money providing you are doing so in an area where the government has no interest. The Singapore government runs many enterprises and if you happen to be their competition they will tear you apart to get rid of the competition. The Singaporean government tends to cater to the multinational corporations, who were their earlier ticket to economic prosperity, and don't do a lot to encourage local grown business other than to provide a suitable environment for business, which is good enough on its own. Singapore is a great place to do business, yours costs are predictable, something you can not say about the surrounding countries where corruption makes costs unpredictable. Singapore labor is reasonably priced, well-educated, reasonably trained, and well-disciplined - or at least they don't talk back or complain unless you try something really stupid. Singapore management is expensive, well-educated, but not quite as versatile as westerners. Singapore is a social experiment, a group (read PAP) has gained control and decided to mold the society into something different than it was. This is probably a good thing as in the 50s Singapore was a cesspool, in many ways. The story goes that you could smell Singapore 200 miles out, in an airplane. Everything that Singapore is today is what it was not in the 50s. The educational system has been engineered to produce the maximum number of worker units. Being a small country with limited resources (with labor being the main exportable resource) they could not afford to have an educational system which allowed some potential worker units to drop-out. Compare this against the American system where you are free to succeed, or free to fail, the choice is basically given to the citizen. In Singapore this is not how it works, the blinders are installed early, you are not permitted to fail to become a good productive member of the society. In Singapore you are free, as long as you are a good productive member of the society. Try talking back and complaining about the system and see where that gets you? I think they call it Woodbridge. This social engineering may be a good thing. Look at the benefits obtained by Singapore. In the current economic meltdown in SE Asia Singapore is only threatened with lower growth. The people are happy and they love their country and government, to the average Singaporean the government can do no wrong. Most Western governments would love to be in the same position. There are costs associated with an engineered society of this type. Elder Statesman Lee, he went by Harry Lee before he learned Mandarin, is always ranting about all the good genetics being wasted as there is a large number of educated women who have not married and therefore are not able to reproduce. Harry has been ranting about this for more than 10 years. In a nutshell certain segments of the population have lost their ability to mate. The Singapore government has initiated a program to help educated Singaporeans find mates. Great system, economic prosperity, but what am I supposed to do with this thing... Don't forget the other good points, no guns or bullets, color copiers are (were?) restricted, all media controlled by the government (even Time magazine was banned), mandatory savings program (CPF), National Service, and the government attitude of those that are not with us are against us. Also, don't forget that the Singaporean government has brought the Big Brother concept to reality. SingMonger

2 1