December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

ruling on deceitful domain names
by David Honig 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Seems a wee bit o' infowar is breaking out in the DNS... ........................................ http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/technology/wired/story.html?s=n/reuters /980213/wired/stories/domain_1.html Friday February 13 2:17 PM EST Planned Parenthood wins ruling in domain dispute By Jen Sullivan SAN FRANCISCO (Wired) - In a decision that underscores the thorny and ongoing issue of brand identity and domain names, the U.S. Second Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction issued last March that prevented the use of the plannedparenthood.com domain name for a personal anti-abortion Web site. U.S. District Court Judge Kimba Wood ruled that there was "significant likelihood" that the Web site by Richard Bucci of Syracuse, New York, would cause confusion among individuals seeking Planned Parenthood's actual site, plannedparenthood.org. The .com version has been placed "on hold" by Network Solutions Inc. (NSI) and is not accessible to Web browsers. Planned Parenthood general counsel Eve Paul lauded the decision. "We aren't a big company that owns factories, we just have our name, and women all over the country trust our name," Paul said. "We can't afford to let someone use it for their own political purposes." Paul praised the court's finding that Bucci's use of the domain was misleading. "When you went to that Web site, it said 'Welcome to the Planned Parenthood home page,"' said Paul. "It really had a very negative effect on our ability to reach a great audience out there." In addition to espousing anti-abortion views, Bucci's site promoted his friend's anti-abortion book. Bucci, an anti-abortion activist who also hosts a local radio program several times a week called "Catholic Hour," stopped using the disputed domain name after the judge issued her preliminary injunction, but plans to fight the court's decision, taking appeals all the way to Supreme Court if possible. "Do you remember General Patton? We're going to continue to hold Planned Parenthood by the nose and kick them in the derriere," Bucci said. Though pleased with the end result, Paul expressed dismay over the slow speed of the process, first with NSI, and then with the ensuing legal action. "Network Solutions was very slow," said Paul. "If they had been available, it certainly would have been cheaper. "Our trademark lawyer wrote them a letter, and they sent back a very bureaucratic response, saying that we hadn't crossed our T's and dotted our I's. We went to court but that turned out to be a longer process than we had hoped," she said. Network Solutions' stated policy is that they do not arbitrate in trademark infringement cases. "What insanity has gotten into the minds of the people when they think of domain names and the Internet," said David Graves, director of business affairs at NSI. "What mechanism does the Newspaper Association of America have in place when an advertiser infringes on a trademark in an advertisement? They don't have separate mechanisms." Stanton McCandlish, program director of the Electronic Frontier Federation (EFF), agreed that trademark infringement is purely a legal issue. "NSI has not been doing a very good job," McCandlish said. "They lose registrations, things get screwed up. But trademark is a big open issue. I don't think that anyone can expect NSI to solve that one. Lawsuits are inevitable. There is not any way to get to heart of the matter." Paul said Planned Parenthood was in the process of acquiring the "plannedparenthood.com" domain name. ------------------------------------------------------------ David Honig Orbit Technology honig(a)otc.net Intaanetto Jigyoubu Has Nike hired Monica to endorse kneepads yet?

1 0

The Doctor has been spanked!!!
by Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As of 1pm today: # Guy, # # Thank you for the supporting documentation you've provided. # # Dr. Dimitry V's PSINet service has been terminated. ...he called one person too many a 'pedophile'. ---guy

1 0

UK Crypto Ban?
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Campaign Against Censorship of the Internet <cacib(a)liberty.org.uk> To: ukcrypto(a)maillist.ox.ac.uk Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 18:18:28 +0100 Subject: Key escrow announcement A source who is a lobbyist in a non-computer sector has just called me to say that Margaret Beckett will be announcing a (compulsory?) key escrow program next Tuesday. So far I don't have independent confirmation, although Nigel Hickson recently said here that he was expecting an announcement "soon". Here's hoping we can get it out before the gvt machine controls the spin. Regards, Malcolm Hutty. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Campaign Against Censorship Tel: 0171 589 4500 of the Internet in Britain Fax: 0171 589 4522 e-mail: cacib(a)liberty.org.uk Say NO to Censorship Web: http://www.liberty.org.uk/cacib ---------- Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 23:57:32 +0000 To: ukcrypto(a)maillist.ox.ac.uk From: T Bruce Tober <octobersdad(a)reporters.net> Subject: More rumours? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Free Life Commentary Editor: Sean Gabb Issue Number Ten Tuesday 10th February 1998, 11:20pm ========================== "Over himself, over his own mind and body, the individual is sovereign" (J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859) ========================== Next Week's British Encryption Ban by Sean Gabb Earlier this evening, I was given confidential information by someone close to a British Cabinet Minister. I am not in the habit of speaking to such people, let alone having them leak state secrets to me. But that is what happened. In publishing what I heard, I am now risking a prosecution under the Official Secrets Acts - or, more likely, being made to look ridiculous if what I predict does not happen. These risks being accepted, here is the leak. Next Tuesday, the 17th February 1998, the Department of Trade and Industry will announce plans to outlaw the use of strong encryption software within the United Kingdom. We are to be encouraged - and ultimately forced - to encrypt our e-mail only in ways that will allow the authorities to read it. My source was vague about the details of the scheme, saying that they had not yet been circulated to the full Cabinet. But I imagine that it will be more or less a reprint of the Conservative Government's public consultation paper of March 1997. This came to nothing because of the change of Government, and it was even hoped that Labour would have a more liberal policy on Internet regulation. However, Margaret Beckett, the Minister now responsible for trade and industrial policy, is neither bright nor forceful; and she was early captured by the officials who in theory are supposed to do her bidding. If next Tuesday's consultation paper differs at all from the last one, it will be only in matters of small detail and presentation. For this reason, it is probably safe to take the last paper as a guide to what we can expect. The Government will propose creating a network of what are called Trusted Third Parties, or TTPs. These are to be organisations licensed to provide encryption services to the public - that is, software, consultancy and other support. Because they have been licensed by the State, we are to be encouraged to believe that they really are trustworthy - that they are not distributing bad encryption software, or robbing their clients in other ways. But just in case we decide not to believe any of this, it will be made illegal for any unlicensed person to offer encryption services. Here, it is worth quoting from last year's consultation paper: The legislation will prohibit an organisation from offering or providing encryption services to the UK public without a licence. Prohibition will be irrespective of whether a charge is made for such services. The offering of encryption services to the UK public (for example via the Internet) by an unlicensed TTP outside of the UK will also be prohibited. For this purpose, it may be necessary to place restrictions on the advertising and marketing of such services to the public. Enacted into law, this would make it illegal for me to copy encryption software from my hard disk for a friend, and for computer magazines to include it on their free cover disks. It would also allow a strict supervision of the material and the links given access to by British sites on the World Wide Web. The paper never clarifies why we need TTPs in the first place, or why - their need granted - they can only be trusted if licensed by the State. But it does say a lot about law enforcement and national security. Or, to be more accurate, it does say a lot in the usual code about the need to fill in any last potholes on the road to a British police state. Starting with the Interception of Communications Act 1985, the British State has given itself powers of surveillance that a Third World dictator might envy. It can tap our phones on the word of a Minister. It can burgle our homes and leave recording devices behind on the word of a senior policeman. It can trawl through and inspect any records on us held by any organisation. It can do all this without our knowledge, and without any effective system of appeal and redress. The relevant laws are careful to describe the permissions for this as "warrants". But they really are no more than what in France before the Revolution were called Lettres du Cachet - things that our ancestors boasted did not and could not exist in the freer air of England. The spread of personal computers seemed likely at first to extend the scope of surveillance still further. This had until then been limited by cost. For all the theoretical risks, sending letters in sealed envelopes through the post has always been reasonably secure: the costs of interception can only be justified in exceptional cases. For the same reason, most private papers are safe. But the routing of an increasing amount of mail through the Internet promised to bring down the costs of surveillance to the point where everyone could be watched. The storage of records on computers connected to the Internet promised to make it possible for the authorities to spy on people by remote control. The problem is the development of strong encryption software like pgp, and its growing popularity among millions of ordinary people who, though not criminals, have a strong regard for privacy. It allows us to keep our e-mail and private records secret to all but the most determined and expensive attacks. It gives to us the benefits of instant communication and mass data storage, but keeps the authorities - despite their new powers of surveillance - no better informed than in the old days of due process and envelope steaming. Therefore all the talk of Trusted Third Parties. The terms of their licences will require them to sell encryption software with keys that cannot be modified by their clients, and to collect and store copies of these keys for handing over to the authorities. Last year's document is full of promises about "strict safeguards" and the like. But the reality is this: The legislation will provide that the Secretary of State may issue a warrant requiring a TTP to disclose private encryption keys... or a body covered by that warrant. No mention of judicial involvement at the time, or judicial review afterwards - just more police state commands. We can ignore anything the Government parrots next week about law enforcement and national security - or, for that matter, child pornography and complex fraud. These really are just code words. If I were a criminal, or a terrorist, or a foreign spy, the last encryption software I would use would come from a Trusted Third Party. Strong encryption packages are available all over the Internet, or can pass from hand to hand on a single floppy disk. Nor would I worry much about laws against the transmission of data encrypted with unlicensed software. There are ways of keeping the authorities from even knowing that an Internet message contains encrypted data. Somewhere, I have an early version of a program called Steganography, created by Romana Machado. This takes an encrypted text and merges it into a graphics file. My version produces a visible degradation of picture quality. Almost certainly, the newer releases have solved this problem. Assuming I had them, and were sufficiently unpatriotic - neither applies in my case, let me add - I could e-mail this country's battle plans straight off to Saddam Hussain merged invisibly into a picture of my dog. GCHQ would never notice until the Scud missiles began landing on Cheltenham. No - the encryption ban will be aimed at us, the honest public. We are the people who tend to respect the law - or at least to be afraid of it enough to comply in most cases. It is our privacy that is to be stripped away. It is we who are to become like Winston Smith, living for every moment when the telescreens are not monitoring our facial expressions. Why this is desired I cannot say. But we are living though an age of withering trust in the common people. In this country, we are not trusted to possess guns for our self-defence - or indeed to carry carpet knives locked inside our cars. We are not trusted to choose and administer our own medicines, or to bring up our own children in the manner of our choice, or to decide whether or not oxtail soup might be bad for us. Plugging in the telescreens is only a logical next step. Normally, when I write on these issues, I work myself into a frenzy of pessimism. At the moment, though, I feel rather optimistic. Next Tuesday's proposals will cause an uproar. This will not come from the so-called civil liberties groups like Liberty - excepting a few small bodies like the Libertarian Alliance, they have all been taken over by New Labour apparatchiks who can be trusted to keep their mouths shut. It will come from the big business interests. British Telecom is the third or fourth largest telecommunications company in the world. If operates in more than 40 markets, often needing to provide its clients with very secure networks. In the City of London there are more representative offices of foreign banks than in the rest of the European Union combined. These have a taste for confidentiality. There are many other large interests - all paying billions in taxes, all likely to be very hostile to any scheme that will make them appear less useful to foreign clients. We have a Labour Government that still needs to establish itself in the public mind as a party friendly to business. These facts can surely be trusted to ensure the dropping of a scheme that would not merely turn the country into a full police state, but also do the greatest damage to British business since nationalisation. Or so I hope. ========================== Free Life Commentary is an independent journal of comment, published on the Internet. To receive regular issues, send e-mail to Sean Gabb at old.whig(a)virgin.net Issues are archived at <http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/> Contact Address: 25 Chapter Chambers, Esterbrooke Street, London, SW1P 4NN; Telephone: 0181 858 0841 If you like Free Life Commentary, you may also care to subscribe to my longer, hard copy journal, Free Life, subscription details for which can be obtained by writing to me at the above address. ========================== Legal Notice: Though using the name Free Life, this journal is owned by me and not by the Libertarian Alliance, which in consequence bears no liability of whatever kind for the contents. - -- Sean Gabb | "Over himself, over his own | E-mail: old.whig(a)virgin.net | mind and body, the individual| <http://freespace.virgin.net/old.whig/> | is sovereign" | Mobile Number: 0956 472199 | J.S. Mill, On Liberty, 1859 | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Charset: noconv iQCVAwUBNOI4cDzmzFmU9IJVAQFOFAQAlLgKRAM6wTztCSVvUAAUY/g8k0iOKCGY 4s8O7c+axQUcf3e3RTxKbIPqoIeb81uIcKwv86havRuUsm2r2OHADuRBlWT7VgrR RKKCuuvrF19G4/hLTn7094NqUvnp5LAZpKOX7ITYQC/grQL8gnkd/xvpj55Z9oek idz0EU18xJo= =cNRU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- tbt -- -- |Bruce Tober, octobersdad(a)reporters.net, Birmingham, England +44-121-242-3832| | Freelance PhotoJournalist - IT, Business, The Arts and lots more | |pgp key ID 0x94F48255. Website - http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/crecon/ |

2 1

BXA, UK Ban, McCain-Kerrey
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to Greg Broiles' and Ulf Möller's posts and the prospect of a UK ban on non-escrowed encryption next Tuesday: Opening Address Under Secretary William A. Reinsch Bureau of Export Administration U.S. Department of Commerce Update West 98 Los Angeles, California February 10, 1998 [Excerpt] Encryption One of the reasons why our licensing load is inching back up is the transfer of encryption licensing to Commerce earlier this year. No speech from me would be complete without a paragraph on encryption, so here it is. Our policy is intended to balance the competing interests of privacy, electronic commerce, law enforcement, and national security. We believe that use of key recovery technologies is the best way to achieve that balance. We do not focus narrowly on a single technology or approach. We expect the market to make those judgments, but we are taking steps to facilitate the development and dissemination of these products. Our regulations allow recoverable encryption products of any strength and key length to be exported freely after a single review by the government. To encourage movement toward recoverable products, we have also created a special, two-year liberalization period during which companies may export 56 bit DES or equivalent products provided they submit plans to develop key recovery products. This provides an incentive for manufacturers to develop these products, which in turn will facilitate the development of key management infrastructures. So far, we have approved 47 plans, from companies large and small, and have five more pending. In terms of licenses, in calendar year 1997, we received 2076 applications, and approved 1801 licenses with a dollar value of $4.7 billion. (The reason for the high dollar value is because we approve encryption licensing arrangements for extended periods of time, from 4 to 10 years.) The interagency working group on cryptography policy, which includes representatives from BXA, NSA, and the FBI, continue to meet to discuss ways to streamline the licensing process on encryption export licenses. Several items have been identified and progress is being made in these areas. We have established a pre-Operating Committee group to discuss contentious cases. In part as a result, no encryption cases have been escalated to the OC since mid-December. We have created an Autolist to eliminate agency referrals. So far, we have agreed to list specific products amounting to 20% of the products we see. This means, once implemented, that a subset of licenses can be processed by Commerce without prior referral to other agencies. Finally, we have posted on our web page "helpful hints" to make the encryption licensing process more transparent: http://www.bxa.doc.gov/encguide.htm We continue to work on other initiatives to streamline the process. We are also discussing with our trading partners a common approach to encryption policy. We have found that most major producing countries have public safety and national security concerns similar to ours. We are working together with these governments to ensure that our policies are compatible, and that they facilitate the emergence of a key management infrastructure. With respect to legislation, we believe the McCain-Kerrey Bill, S. 909, the Secure Public Networks Act, provides a sound basis for legislation acceptable to both Congress and the Administration. In particular, we appreciate the bill's explicit recognition of the need to balance competing objectives and of the potential for key recovery to become a market-driven mechanism to facilitate maintaining that balance. ... [Other excerpts of speeches by BXA officials at the seminar:] Encryption Controls Export Enforcement has new responsibilities in the encryption area. Over the past year, Export Enforcement has opened many new investigations involving alleged violations of the encryption regulations. These cases are being watched very closely. The national security of the United States depends in part on the government's ability to obtain timely information about the activities and plans of potentially hostile foreign parties, such as terrorists and drug dealers. ... the Department of Justice and National Security Agency participate in processing licenses for encryption. ... The increase in licenses we are experiencing is attributable not only to increased exports, but to transfer of items from the Munitions List to Commerce jurisdiction. Encryption licenses account for a significant portion of the increase. We created a special division to handle those. As of today, there is only one encryption case that has been pending over 40 days. ----- For full speeches: http://jya.com/bxa-west98.htm

1 0

The New Music Boulevard
by http://musicblvd.com/ 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Visit the new and improved Music Boulevard today and check out our new design! We've added 5 new music departments -- that means more featured CDs, new releases, record reviews and in-store specials for you. Here are some of the exciting sales events going on right now: * FREE SHIPPING for U.S. orders of three or more items! * 3 CDs for $30! Over 25,000 CDs on sale! * Celebrate BLACK HISTORY MONTH with us! Influential artists and essential albums are on sale. * Say it with music -- we've got 50 ways to please your lover this Valentine's Day! * The GRAMMY NOMINEES are in, and on sale! Winners to be announced on February 25th. * The BOGMEN LIVE CD is available exclusively on Music Boulevard, only while supplies last. Catch these rising stars while you still can! To take advantage of these specials and shop from our catalog of over 200,000 albums, stop by Music Boulevard today -- http://www.musicblvd.com ! P.S. Enjoy Music Boulevard's new look. We love to hear from our customers, so please let us know what you think. THANK YOU FOR SHOPPING ON MUSIC BOULEVARD! -------------------------------- TO UNSUBSCRIBE -------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send an email to: remove-musicblvd(a)sparklist.com and you will automatically be removed from this list.

1 0

Pauline Hanson's Newsletter
by Global Web Builders 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Issue 1.7, February 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLEASE NOTE: No unsolicited email is sent. If you do not want to be on the mailing list please say "REMOVE" in the subject line and return this message in the body. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear supporters in NSW, You may not have seen the recent article in the Australian Financial Review (3rd Feb 1998). Here is a short summary. The subject is political donations: Over 90% of loans (or $4,650,000) to the Liberal Party have been made by one body - the Greenfields Foundation. This organisation has strong links with the Liberal Party's funding vehicle, the Free Enterprise Foundation which was caught out in the 1995 crackdown of the disclosure law. The post box of both is the same and the trustee of the Free Enterprise Foundation since 1981, Tony Bandle, responded to the Australian Electoral's Enquiries about disclosures by the Greenfields Foundation. The Greenfields Foundation has 'lent' the Liberal Party over 80% of its total donations to avoid disclosing just who the donors to Greenfields are. We know that most large donations received by both the Liberal and Australian Labor Party are from multinationals - the benefactors of the multilateral agreement on investment (MAI) (eg Village Roadshow over $200,000; ANZ Bank over $100,000). Benefactors of the MAI, like media giant News Limited, have gone out of their way to try to close down donations to One Nation by alleging large commissions and rewards for One Nation National Director David Ettridge. These claims are false and have one aim - to financially cripple Pauline Hanson's One Nation while multinationals quietly throw hundreds of thousands of dollars at the major parties to support their next federal campaign - one would be a fool to believe there is no contra. Meanwhile, the Liberal Party have refused to return over $50,000 to me after my win in the seat of Oxley. Most of the money would be used by me to benefit the Oxley electorate. See my on-line press release for full details: http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation/press/130298a.html Finally, on the subject of political donations it should come therefore as no surprise that both Kim Beazley and John Howard's foreign minister Alexander Downer have said that 'MAI is good for Australia'. Please visit: http://www.gwb.com.au/mai.html and be the judge. We desperately need your donations to ensure that One Nation can present a strong case at the next Federal Election. We are calling on 'people power' - that's you - to help us by making a donation, no matter how small it is important. If you believe, like I do that Australia has got to be turned around what cost can be too much for the sake of our children and their children? Please contact the Manly office on (02) 9976 0283 or complete and return the donation form at: http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation/funds.html For those of you who are members of Pauline Hanson's One Nation we are holding a celebration of the party's first anniversary over the Easter Weekend (April 10-12) on my rural property near Ipswich in South East Queensland. In true Australian style camping and bar-b-ques under the starlit sky will be the order of the day. There will be competitions, entertainment like bush dancing, karaoke and horse racing - and much, much more. If you are interested please contact (07) 3369 8214, 3848 2197, 3399 6662 or 3399 6901 for details. Costs range from $25 per day for adults or just $45 for the three. Families from $55 for the one day to $85 for the three. Book before you put this one in your diary (limited numbers)! Finally important Internet addresses: Pauline Hanson's One Nation: http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation One Nation Press Releases (about 10 in the last month): http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation/press/ Pauline Hanson

1 0

Q
by Q 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Whats up?

1 0

Beating the UK Crypto ban.
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- Supposedly the UK is not going to prohibit cryptography, the kindly and benevolent government is merely going to protect us from irresponsible certificate authorities by licensing the issue of certificates. Thus in theory the ban should not affect Crypto Kong, which does not rely on certificates, does not attempt to address the question of which Bob is the real Bob. Instead it merely checks that the Bob who signed one letter is the same Bob as the Bob who signed the other letter. (And you can make an encrypted reply to any signed document) --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG CK7qsZEkDlKWk1tmxpi8TmOY5r7pCmwM+xlgxk5x 4pFtHUXCAe4Hr1r3Zj40b35HrJbyCKusv0OUOt/Yo --------------------------------------------------------------------- We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the state. http://www.jim.com/jamesd/

1 0

Microsoft says it's spying on you....
by Ken Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Microsoft says it's spying on you with only the purest of intentions. At least for now..." http://www.mojones.com/mother_jones/JF98/blow.html TATTOOMAN

1 0

Letter of the law
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I'm in El Paso Texas... so close to the border >I can see Old Mex outside my window as I write this.. >I'm over there nearly every day for lunch ( I actually >walk there from my house it's so close) If I write >a crypto program on my laptop over there and ftp >it to a web page I have on a server outside the US >will I have avoided the foolish export regs?? >Does anyone know of someone trying this before?? My guess is this: if it has the name of a US citizen in the copyright notice, it will be assumed to have been made in the US. if the morons even go after you. you still may have a plausable excuse if ever taken to court. after all, you "exported" youself, which is a perfectly legal thing to take out of the country, and "yourself" accidentally spewed a copy of something that couldn't cross the border. I don't think anybody has tried this and been challenged. then again, a lot of us don't have the opportunity. It's easier to ask forgivness than permission... Another easier excuse would be to publish it freely in hardcopy form, and just "happen" to have somebody end up "typing" in your source code abroad, making a legit international copy... -Anon2

2 1