December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

QANTAS discriminates against Pauline Hanson's One Nation
by Global Web Builders 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear One Nation supporter in NSW, Qantas has banned coverage of Pauline Hanson and One Nation from inflight news. Qantas has effectively censored Channel 9's inflight coverage of Australian news and has, in effect, implied that there is something "distasteful" about Mrs Hanson and her political party. The action allegedly follows a complaint by a QANTAS staff member about coverage of Mrs Hanson being offensive to Indonesian passengers on an international flight. Pauline Hanson's political adviser, Mr David Oldfield, said it was "disgraceful, un-Australian activity asking Channel 9 to be political censors on behalf of Qantas. "Everything that is said publicly, people should have the right to judge for themselves whether something matters or doesn't," he said. "But it certainly isn't up to any airline or anyone else to decide that legitimate public debate isn't to be viewed." If you feel rightfully outraged by this act of censorship by Qantas (the Australian Airline) please contact them by email: qantasmedia(a)qantas.com.au I would encourage you to take a moment to express how you feel about this issue. Finally, please note Ansett have not undertaken censorship of this sort. GWB Scott Balson

1 0

Banning privacy: A radical proposal
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This came from Yahoo/ZDNet. Mr. Pappas suggests that we just ban anonymity and privacy to "protect the children." Now where have I heard that before? And yet again, the "Ethical Hackers Against Pedophilia" raise their heads, no pun intended. >Banning privacy: A radical proposal > >By Charles Pappas >June 22, 1998 >Yahoo! Internet Life > >Copyright (c) 1998 ZDNet > >Privacy and anonymity are our most cherished tenets of online life. A >need so immense that Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy >Information Center declared that we might need a kind of Department of >Privacy. He's not alone: 72 percent of surfers think there should be new >laws to protect their privacy. > >It's a radical, 180-degree turn to take, but...what if we're all wrong? >What if this belief that privacy + anonymity = social good has become as >self-destructive and delusional as a drunk who thinks one more scotch >will make him feel better? > >Like Marley's ghost, privacy may be coming back to haunt us. And that >ghost's name is pedophilia. How bad is it? Disguised as a 13-year-old, I >was directly propositioned on AOL in fewer than 10 minutes on each of >six separate attempts. I entered a chat room--usually called something >like "x9x10x11" or even "JonBenet Ramsey" (code words that alert >pedophiles where to swarm)--and waited for the assaults to start. > >Even when I didn't enter a chat room, the offers kept coming in from >pedophiles prowling for victims. One wanted to send me pictures of >himself. Another asked for a phone number. "I want to do my daughter," >one confessed to me. Later, when I searched for their screen names, they >had all disappeared into the anonymous electronic mist. > >AOL monitors kids' chat rooms continuously. (Parents can also set the >AOL software so their children can't use chat rooms.) "We have a >zero-tolerance policy when it comes to anything illegal," assures AOL >spokeswoman Tricia Primrose. "We have about 8,000 monitors scanning up >to 19,000 chat rooms, message boards, member profiles, and other areas. >When we get any kind of complaint, we immediately check it out. And >we're working with the FBI, customs, and other officials." > >It's not just AOL, of course. Child molesters "operate on every avenue >of the Net," says PhotonRain (not his real name) of Ethical Hackers >Against Pedophilia, a group that aids law enforcement in combating child >pornography. "WWW, newsgroups, IRC, ICQ, FTP servers..." > >We already know it's widespread and easy to encounter. But how often >have we heard--and parroted--the party line that problems on the Net >just reflect real-world problems, no more and no less? Holland slays >that sacred lamb: "The amount of pedophilia on the Net is extremely >disproportional to...society as a whole. They hide behind the anonymity >the Net offers. And they are aware of the small odds against being >caught." > >Ruben Rodriguez, director of the Exploited Child unit for the National >Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), concurs: "The Net is so >anonymous that molesters are very comfortable on it. They can go in and >hunt kids down, and attempt five or six seductions at the same time." > >"Let's face it," says a New York State investigator who requests >anonymity, "the Net's anonymity enables the sickness. In a couple of >hours I could easily get 2,000 pictures if I wanted, including the Baby >Rape series," a popular collection of pedophilia photos whose name is >horrifyingly self-explanatory. > >In recent weeks, U.S. authorities have helped nab 60 online molesters, >while the FBI reports that its 3-year-old Innocent Images >investigation--an online task force identifying predators--has resulted >in 184 convictions. An impressive stat, but less than confidence >inspiring when research suggests the average child molester will have >more than 70 victims throughout his lifetime. > >At the same time we splash sex offenders' names online, our lawmakers >weigh in with proposed privacy law after privacy law. "No one wants to >give up privacy," says NCMEC's Rodriguez, whose organization now runs a >CyberTipline for leads on the sexual exploitation of children. "But what >do you do when your laws and protections are turned against you? >Something's got to give." > >But what? Our conventional wisdom that privacy is worth any risks? Just >touching this petrified opinion will get me slapped with a swastika--but >as philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said, "All truth passes through three >stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, >it is accepted as being self-evident." > >To be continued--that's for certain. > >Copyright (c) 1998 ZDNet. All rights reserved.

4 3

Skipjack Up
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

John, The files are up, and hopefully all working OK. See http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/skipjack-kea.htm Ed Roback

1 0

nation's most secretive spy agency
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wednesday 6/24/98 8:03 AM Glave I am reading http://www.wired.com/news/news/technology/story/13215.html I recevied a motion from US Assistant Attorney Mitchell yesterday in the mail. I haven't read it yet. Mitchell phoned on f 6/19. Mitchell told me she is moving to remand FOIA ALGORITHM request to NSA. I made a copy of the materials I received and sent them to John Young. I attach a copy of Morales and my complaint to the senate judiciary committee. This e-mail explains more about our interest in NSA. VISIBILITY. I do not have much interest in crypto. One of my problems is a REVERSE cyrpto problem. Trying to get people to read my geek books and obscure binary results. I MERELY BUILT CRYPTO DEVICES FOR NSA. And took a poke at NSA for trying to screw-up Sandia/DOE projects with bad crypto algorithm and implementation advice. http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm Especially in http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm#apps NSA has NO SENSE OF HUMOR. Pseudorandom numbers are close enough to crypto that I understand what the crypto people are doing. Morales and I want our money and out of this mess. Best Sincerely http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2 Looks like we succeeded in getting others to read about the gfsr! In fact, Knuth included the gfsr on page 32 of his books series Art of Computer Programming: Vol 2 Seminumerical algorithms. This likely accounts for http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html Coauthor Lewis in the above is one of my former MS and PhD students in computer science. http://www.friction-free-economy.com/ Subject: Judicial Misconduct at Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 13:29:01 -0600 From: bill payne <billp(a)nmol.com> To: art morales <armoral(a)sandia.gov>, senator_hatch(a)Hatch.senate.gov, senator(a)thurmond.senate.gov, chuck_grassley(a)grassley.senate.gov, senator_specter(a)specter.senate.gov, senator_thompson(a)thompson.senate.gov, info(a)kyl.senate.gov, senator_dewine(a)dewine.senate.gov, john_ashcroft(a)ashcroft.senate.gov, michigan(a)abraham.senate.gov, senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov, senator(a)kennedy.senate.gov, senator(a)biden.senate.gov, senator_kohl(a)kohl.senate.gov, senator(a)feinstein.senate.gov, russell_feingold(a)feingold.senate.gov, dick(a)durbin.senate.gov, senator(a)torricelli.senate.gov CC: steve dillingham <" Steven.Dillingham"@hq.doe.gov>, Robert Nordhaus <" Robert.Nordhaus"@hq.doe.gov>, mrgall(a)ix.netcom.com, jy(a)jya.com, art morales <armoral(a)sandia.gov>, federico pena <" Federico.F.Pena"@hq.doe.gov>, RJPARK(a)sandia.gov, cypherpunks(a)toad.com, ukcrypto(a)maillist.ox.ac.uk Monday 6/22/98 1:02 PM Senate Judiciary Committee http://www.senate.gov/committee/judiciary.html Republicans Orrin G. Hatch, Utah, Chairman senator_hatch(a)Hatch.senate.gov Strom Thurmond, South Carolina senator(a)thurmond.senate.gov Charles E. Grassley, Iowa chuck_grassley(a)grassley.senate.gov Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania senator_specter(a)specter.senate.gov Fred Thompson, Tennessee senator_thompson(a)thompson.senate.gov Jon Kyl, Arizona info(a)kyl.senate.gov Mike DeWine, Ohio senator_dewine(a)dewine.senate.gov John Ashcroft, Missouri john_ashcroft(a)ashcroft.senate.gov Spencer Abraham, Michigan michigan(a)abraham.senate.gov Jeff Sessions, Alabama Democrats Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont senator_leahy(a)leahy.senate.gov Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts senator(a)kennedy.senate.gov Joseph R.Biden, Jr., Delaware senator(a)biden.senate.gov Herb Kohl, Wisconsin senator_kohl(a)kohl.senate.gov Dianne Feinstein, California senator(a)feinstein.senate.gov Russell D. Feingold, Wisconsin russell_feingold(a)feingold.senate.gov Richard Durbin, Illinois dick(a)durbin.senate.gov Robert Torricelli, New Jersey senator(a)torricelli.senate.gov Purpose of this e-mail is to give written proof of criminal judicial misconduct by Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals clerks Hoecker, Fisher, and Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis and help get this matter settled. Thursday March 30, 1995 I wrote Tenth Circuit clerk Hoecker to request a copy of the docket sheets for case 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al Hoecker did not answer my letter. On Tuesday March 5,1996 I wrote Judge Lucius D. Bunton to ask his help to get a copy of the docket sheets. No response. On Monday September 23, 1996 Arthur R Morales and I wrote Henry A. Politz, Chief Judge U.S. Court of Appeals - Fifth Circuit to ask his help to get a copy of the docket sheets of my case and Morales Tenth Circuit case 95-2204. Tenth Circuit also refused to send Morales copies of docket sheets for his case. Politz is Bunton's boss. No response. Friday May 30, 1997 I wrote Antonin Scalia to get this help to get a copy of the docket sheets. No response. 5 May 1998 citizen John Young finds docket sheets on Source: PACER, U.S. Court of Appeals, 10th Circuit, 1-800-279-9107 and posts them on Internet at http://jya.com/whp-10usca.htm Docket as of April 10, 1998 0:05 am Proceedings include all events. 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al shows that I filed my Brief of the Appellant on 2/19/95. 2/23/95 [835344] Appellant's brief filed by William H. Payne. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 2/19/95 Oral argument? pro se. Appellee/Respondent's brief due 3/24/95 for Thomas P. Wright, for Robert Surran, for Paul A. Stokes, for Mary J. Stang, for Tommy A. Sellers, for Craig A. Searls, for Albert Narath, for Preston B. Herrington, for Peter S. Hamilton, for Roger L. Hagengruber, for James R. Gosler, for Harold L. Folley, for Robert L. Ewing, for C. William Childers, for Harvey J. Brewster, for Sandia Corporation (mbm) mbm writes "Appellee/Respondent's brief due 3/24/95" Sandia had sent me a copy of its brief by 3/28/96. I filed attached MOTION TO GRANT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT'S DEMANDS ON BASIS THAT DEFENDANT-APPELLEES FAILED TO FILE BRIEF WITHIN 30 DAYS SPECIFIED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 31 on Tuesday the 28th day of March, 1995 My February 28 MOTION at the Tenth Circuit is filed WITHOUT notice of service logged. 4/4/95 [845484] Appellant's motion filed by Appellant William H. Payne [94-2205] to grant appellant's demands on basis that appellees' failed to file timely brief. Original and 3 copies c/s: y (mbm) In 1995 FRAP 25 (a) stated "[b]riefs shall be deemed filed on the day of mailing if the most expeditious form of delivery by mail, excepting special delivery, is used." FRAP 25 has been changed by 1998 to http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#25a Since I mailed Appellant's motion filed by Appellant William H. Payne [94-2205] to grant appellant's demands on basis that appellees' failed to file timely brief on 3/28/98, it is likely Sandia's lawyer Friedman received it 3/29/95. Tenth Circuit logs 3/30/95 [844759] Appellee's brief filed by Sandia Corporation, Harvey J. Brewster, C. William Childers, Robert L. Ewing, Harold L. Folley, James R. Gosler, Roger L. Hagengruber, Peter S. Hamilton, Preston B. Herrington, Albert Narath, Craig A. Searls, Tommy A. Sellers, Mary J. Stang, Paul A. Stokes, Robert Surran, Thomas P. Wright. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 3/27/95 Oral Argument? y (appellant is pro se) Appellant's optional reply brief due 4/13/95 for William H. Payne (mbm) Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure [FRAP] 26 (c) states (c) Additional Time after Service. When a party is required or permitted to act within a prescribed period after service of a paper upon that party, 3 calendar days are added to the prescribed period unless the paper is delivered on the date of service stated in the proof of service. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#26c While the Tenth Circuit ASSERTS Appellees brief was, in fact, served on 3/27/95 evidence given below points to the brief was served, in fact, on 3/29/95. I allege that Friedman affixed a false date of service to Sandia's brief. I WAS NEVER PROPERLY SERVED. I wrote Wednesday March 29, 1995 Dan Friedman Simons, Cuddy & Friedman Pecos Trail Office Compound 1701 Old Pecos Trail POB 4160 Santa Fe, NM 87502-4160 505-988-4476 505-984-1807 FAX Dear Lawyer Friedman: Today at 14:00 hours I found a green and white about 9x13 inch envelope in our mail box at my home. Mailing label indicated that the envelope came from your firm. CONFIDENTIAL was stamped on the mailing label. I wrote "Received at 14:00 hours on W 3/29/95 with no POSTMARK OR STAMP by W. H. Payne" at the bottom of the envelope. There was no STAMP OR POSTAGE METER LABEL or POSTMARK on the envelope. Therefore, I gave the envelope to US Postal Service supervisor Mel at 14:49 hours today at the Postal Receiving station at 9904 Montgomery, NW in Albuquerque. Mel has a copy of the cover of the envelope with Mel's note written on it. Mel told me the post office was going to return the envelope to your firm for proper mailing. I ask: 1 What did this envelope contain? Please identify the documents precisely. 2 If any Certificates of Service were included in the envelope, then what were the dates affixed to these documents? 3 Who placed this envelope in our mail box? Lawyer Friedman: It appears you missed an important filing date. And are in the process of attempt to correct your failure. But may be using illegitimate methods to conceal your failure. Please respond as soon as possible so that we all may discover what has happened here." ... Lawyer Friedman did not respond to the above letter. But Friedman did mail me Appellees brief many days later in envelope showing TRUE MAILING date. Certificate of service on received Appellees brief did not reflect postmark date. 10th Cir. R. 25.4 in 1995 page 62 reads Papers not accepted for filing. -- The clerk shall not file papers that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and these rules See 10thCir. R. 42.1 But Tenth Circuit clerks Fisher and Hoecker despite my protests and submission of evidence may have stamped FILED on Sandia's IMPROPERLY SERVED Appellee/Respondent's brief according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Laywer Friedman FALSIFIED THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. Friedman DID NOT MAIL ME "Served on 3/27/95." d) Proof of Service; Filing. A paper presented for filing shall contain an acknowledgment of service by the person served or proof of service in the form of a statement of the date and manner of service, of the name of the person served, and of the addresses to which the papers were mailed or at which they were delivered, certified by the person who made service. Proof of service may appear on or be affixed to the papers filed. When a brief or appendix is filed by mailing or dispatch in accordance with Rule 25(a)(2)(B), the proof of service shall also state the date and manner by which the document was mailed or dispatched to the clerk. http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/frap-iop.htm#25a Crime apparently committed by Hoecker and Fisher is § 1017. Government seals wrongfully used and instruments wrongfully sealed Whoever fraudulently or wrongfully affixes or impresses the seal of any department or agency of the United States, to or upon any certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper or with knowledge of its fraudulent character, with wrongful or fraudulent intent, uses, buys, procures, sells, or transfers to another any such certificate, instrument, commission, document, or paper, to which or upon which said seal has been so fraudulently affixed or impressed, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1017.shtml Despite my protests of judicial misconduct Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis award decision to Sandia 10/6/95 [890055] Order filed by Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis "...All outstanding motions are denied..." (found in Order & Judgment of 10/6/95) [879579-1] Parties served by mail. (pdw) when these judges should not have had Appellees brief before them. Then in an apparently attempt to conceal what happened 10/6/95 [890076] NOTE: THIS ENTIRE CASE IS SEALED. Terminated on the Merits after Submission Without Oral Hearing; Judgment Affirmed; Written, Signed, Unpublished. Moore, authoring judge; Barrett; Weis. [94-2205] (pdw) I WON MY APPEAL, pro se, ON A TECHNICALITY but judges Judges Moore, Barrett, Weis awarded the win to Sandia Labs! Members of Congress, judicial misconduct in this matter has been well-documented. Court records filed with the Tenth Circuit. But CURRENTLY under seal. Lawyers involved in this matter attempt to use the legal strategy of IGNORE and STONEWALL to attempt to deny me justice. Ignoring and stonewalling by lawyers forced Morales and me to seek visibility so lawyers could no longer ignore and stonewall. Lawyer attitude apparently is that they ignore rules of civil procedure or even the law so long as their actions are invisible to public scrutiny. Visibility was achieved by suing the National Security Agency which revealed even more judicial misconduct http://www.jya.com/whp052898.htm. I would like to settle all matters involved with this unfortunate cyrpto-related matter, which includes criminal violations of the Privacy Act. DOE lawyer Steve Dillingham asked me to prepare a settlement offer in 1994. I wrote a settlement letter May 22, 1994 to Dillingham. Nothing happened. June 11, 1998 I made several modifications to my 1994 settlement letter and sent it e-mail to Robert Nordhaus, Chief Counsel, DOE. I ask that you 1 help with settlement of my six-year-old since I won my appeal at the Tenth Circuit, 2 investigate Tenth Circuit case 94-2205 Payne v. Sandia Corporation, et al to bring the guilty to justice. Sincerely william payne 505 292 7037 I am not reading e-mail http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2 http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html Coauthor Lewis in the above is one of my former MS and PhD students in computer science. http://www.friction-free-economy.com/ Monday 6/22/98 1:04 PM Members of Congress Purpose of this e-mail is to give written proof of criminal judicial misconduct by Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals clerks Hoecker, Fisher, and Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan and request a congressional investigation. After several years, with Payne, of trying to get Tenth Circuit to send docket sheets from my case, citizen John Young http://www.jya.com/index.htm locates docket sheets and posts them Morales Case Dockets 10th USCA June 12, 1998 on Internet at http://www.jya.com/arm061298.htm. Source: Online records Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals via PACER GENERAL DOCKET FOR Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Docket #: 95-2204 Filed: 9/29/95 Nsuit: 3440 Morales v. Sandia National Lab. Appeal from: United States District Court for the District of New Mexico I filed 11/9/95 [898274] Appellant's brief filed by Arthur R. Morales. Original and 2 copies. c/s: y. Served on 11/7/95. Oral argument? pro se. Appellee's brief due 12/11/95 for Sandia National Lab. (pdw) Sandia files its FIRST ATTEMPT at 12/11/95 [905033] Appellee's deficient brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Appellee's corrected brief due 12/21/95 for Sandia National Lab. additional copies received 12/11/95. (fg) Tenth Circuit court clerk Patrick Fisher writes Wells on December 11, 1995 concerning Sandia's deficient brief [C]orrections, however made, must be accompanied by proof of service upon all other parties to the appeal. ... and issues 12/14/95 [905975] FIRST notice of rules violation for Deborah D. Wells for Appellee Sandia National Lab. (sls) Wells submits 12/21/95 [907974] Appellee's brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 12/20/95 Oral Argument? n Appellant's optional reply brief due 1/8/96 for Arthur R. Morales (mbm) but DOES NOT serve me with a copy. Wells later admits in 2/1/96 [917660] Response filed by Sandia National Lab. Appellant/Petitioner motion to clarify Original and 3 copies. c/s: y response Null Relief Code (fg) Certificate of Service date 30th day of January, 1996, [h]ad Appellant simply made a phone call to the Tenth Circuit, he could have established that the Defendant-Appellee's corrected brief was indeed filed on a timely basis, ... I protested by filing 1/3/96 [909965] Appellant's motion "for the Court to Grant Appeal" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) 1/3/96 [909966] Appellant's motion "for New Trial" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) 1/3/96 [909967] Appellant's motion "to Discipline Defendant-Appellee" filed by Appellant Arthur R. Morales [95-2204]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y. (pdw) because Sandia did not properly serve me in violation of Fisher's December 11, 1995 order. The Tenth Circuit court of appeals should NOT, by its own rules, filed Appellee's brief filed by Sandia National Lab.. Original and 7 copies. c/s: y. Served on 12/20/95 10th Cir. R. 25.4 in 1995 page 62 reads Papers not accepted for filing. -- The clerk shall not file papers that do not comply with the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and these rules See 10thCir. R. 42.1 And is doubtful whether court clerk Fisher had any authority under appellate procedure to permit Wells to correct her deficient brief. Rather Sandia's brief did not comply with with Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and should have been summarily rejected for filing. I WON, pro se, my appeal to the Tenth circuit on a technicality but Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan awarded the win to Sandia Labs. 4/2/96 [932848] Order filed by Judges Anderson, Barrett, Logan denying parties' motions for general relief(found in Order and Judgment of 4/2/96)--"...During the course of this appeal, the parties have filed various motions for dismissal, summary grant, and sanctions. We find no merit to any of these motions, and they are [920851-1] Parties served by mail. (pdw) by accepting and judging on a documents which was not permitted to be before the court by its own rules. Judicial misconduct in my case has been well-documented as it is in Payne's case. Payne and I speculate that similar judicial misconduct may have occurred at the Tenth Circuit. Sandia lawyer Robert J Park wrote me a settlement letter on Feb 18, 1998. I filled in the blanks and made minor handwritten chages and returned it on February 22, 1998. But my offer has not yet been accepted. I ask that you 1 help have my settlement offer accepted, 2 investigate judicial misconduct in case 95-2204 and punish the guilty. Some citizens can only express such frustrations with the US court system with violence. I seek change by legal reform. Sincerely Arthur R Morales 505 345 1381

1 0

New Features @ CNN Custom News
by CustomNews＠INTMAIL.TURNER.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello and thanks for using CNN Custom News. As part of our commitment to make the best personalized news service even better, CNN and Oracle have recently added two great new features to Custom News at http://cnn.com/CustomNews: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< KEEP AN EYE ON YOUR FAVORITE CATEGORY! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< This latest feature allows you to choose one category that will always appear at the top of your personal picks when you check Custom News. For instance, if U.S.:Government:Presidential is your favorite category, you don't have to go to the U.S. page to see it...put it front and center on your personal homepage. To select your favorite category, visit your Custom Profile page at: http://CustomNews.CNN.com/cnews/pna_cust.customize#Favorite and use the drop down box to make your choice. Push the 'done' button and that's it! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< WE'VE ADDED YET ANOTHER SOURCE: PR NEWSWIRE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< The addition of PR Newswire to Custom News provides even deeper business content and improved tracking of particular companies. The latest press releases are available to you almost as soon as they hit the wire. Now, you'll be able to track even more of the latest news regarding your specific companies of interest! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< WHAT IF I'VE FORGOTTEN MY PASSWORD? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>*<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< If you have not used the service in a while or are on a new computer, you may need to enter your user name and password. If you can remember your user name, but forgot your password, the system will prompt you with the reminder message you created at the time of registration. The reminder will appear directly above your login name. If you have forgotten both your user name and password, simply open a new account with our QuickStart Profile option. It's fast and easy to start using CNN Custom News again! Thanks for your time. If you haven't already, come by CNN.com/CustomNews and check out the improved Custom News service. Sincerely, The CNN Custom News Team http://CNN.com/CustomNews ============================================================= If you would rather not receive future updates about Custom News features and events, please go to http://CustomNews.CNN.com/cnews/pna_auth.register and uncheck the "new Custom News features" checkbox. If you cannot access the above page, but would like to be unsubscribed from this list, please go to http://CNN.com/EMAIL/customnews/ and enter your e-mail address. Please DO NOT reply to this e-mail address. CNN Interactive email id:11339101041640714

1 0

Fwd: Re: Banning privacy: A radical proposal
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

==================BEGIN FORWARDED MESSAGE================== >From: "Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> >To: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii(a)invweb.net> >Date: Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:38:12 -0500 >Reply-To: "Jean-Francois Avon" <jf_avon(a)citenet.net> >Priority: Normal >X-Mailer: PMMail 98 Standard (2.00.1500) For Windows 95 (4.0.1111) >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Subject: Re: Banning privacy: A radical proposal > On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 00:38:06 -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote: > >And if they really want to save some children why don't they shut down the >multi-billion dollar infanticide industry known as abortion. Why are these >medical hacks allowed to do to children what they would be jailed for >doing to a dog? Perhaps because it serves nicely with the elitist goals of >population control (need to keep the number of niggers, bean pickers, and >white trash down to a controllable number) not to mention that their >pockets are well lined by the hacks. Hey William, that's called "woman freedom to choose". Woman right precedes the baby-that-might-be rights for she is the sine-qua-none condition for the baby-who-might-be to exist. But it is only *very* rarely that I disagree with you... ;-) Ciao jfa Definition: FACISM: n.: a political and economic movement, strongly nationalistic, magnifying the rights of the state as opposed to those of the individual, in which industry, though remaining largely under private ownership, and all administrative political units, are controlled by a strong central government. ------------------------------------------------- "One of the ordinary modes by which tyrants accomplish their purpose, without resistance, is by disarming the people and making it an offense to keep arms". - Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice. ------------------------------------------------- "1935 will go down in history! For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead in the future!" -Adolf Hitler, April 1935 ------------------------------------------------- PGP keys: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C ===================END FORWARDED MESSAGE=================== Jean-Francois Avon, B.Sc. Physics, Montreal, Canada DePompadour, Société d'Importation Ltée Limoges fine porcelain and french crystal JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers Instrumentation & control, LabView programming PGP keys: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

3 3

ACLU Action Update 06-25-98 -- Victory! (fwd)
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--------------------------------------------------------------- 06-25-98 ACLU Action Update ---------------------------------------------------------------- TO: Action Network FR: Penny Crawley, Cyber Organizer (pcrawley(a)aclu.org) DT: June 25, 1998 1. Victims' Rights Amendment 2. Child Custody Protection:/"Teen Endagerment" Act 3. New E-mail address 1. We did it! With both the House and Senate now adjourned for the Fourth of July recess, "Amend the Constitution Month" in Congress has come to an end a victory: the Constitution remains intact! The Senate Judiciary met briefly this morning to consider the so-called Victims' Rights Amendment (SJ Res. 44), the last of the three amendments targeted by the Republican leadership for passage during June. Although there was a brief debate on this measure, the Committee adjourned for the recess without taking action. It is anticipated that it will take up the proposed amendment shortly after Senators return to Washington on July 6. A new website can be found on the Internet containing editorials and other resources (testimony, position statements and letters to Congress) on why a constitutional amendment is the wrong way to assist victims of crime. The site is located at: http://soiroom.hyperchat.com/celestin/vrainfo.html ACTION NEEDED: A. Urge your U.S. Senators to honor the founding of our nation this Fourth of July by preserving the original Bill of Rights and voting against the victims' rights amendment by sending a FREE FAX from the ACLU website at: http://www.aclu.org/action/victim.html B. Because no advocacy tactic is more effective than personal interaction, push home the point about preserving the Bill of Rights during any public appearance your Senators make during the Fourth of July recess. 2. Child Custody Protection/"Teen Endangerment" Bill Like the Victims' Rights amendment, action on the anti-choice Child Custody Protection Act (S 1645/HR 3682), which was also on today's agenda in the Senate Judiciary Committee, was postponed when the Committee adjourned for recess. It, too, is expected to be taken up when Senators return to the Capitol. ACTION NEEDED: Urge your Senators to oppose this misguided bill, which would intrude into Americans' private relationships, isolate young women by discouraging them from seeking the caring support of a trusted adult, and endanger their lives by forcing them to travel alone to an abortion provider and back home after the surgery. Send a FREE FAX from the ACLU website at: http://www.aclu.org/action/custody.html 3. My e-mail address has changed! All future e-mail should be sent to: pcrawley(a)aclu.org Please update any listings in your address book to reflect the change. (My AOL address will remain active until July 31, 1998.) ---------------------------------------------------------------- ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Freedom Network Web Page: http://www.aclu.org. Constitution Hall on America Online (keyword ACLU) ---------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Action Update ACLU National Washington Office 122 Maryland Avenue NE Washington, DC 20002 To subscribe to the ACLU Action List, send a message to majordomo(a)aclu.org with "subscribe action" in the body of the message. To end your subscription, send a message to majordomo(a)aclu.org with "unsubscribe action" in the body of the message. For general information about the ACLU, write to info(a)aclu.org This Message sent to action

1 0

OCR'ed versions of Skipjack docs
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone have an OCR'ed version of this? These PDF's look like scanned or faxed images. Ern -----Original Message----- From: John Young [SMTP:jya@pipeline.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 6:53 AM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Skipjack Up John, The files are up, and hopefully all working OK. See http://csrc.nist.gov/encryption/skipjack-kea.htm Ed Roback

1 0

Comments on "Encryption is Key to Securing Data" 22 Jun 98
by Bruce Schneier 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This note is to comment on your article, "Encryption is Key to Securing Data," that appeared in the 22 Jun 98 issue of InternetWeek. I'm not sure where to start. Almost every statement made in the copy is erroneous. (There was an error when I tried to download the article from your website, so I will retype. Apologies for minor typos.) Encryption is Key to Securing Data by Dayna DelMonico "Although encryption terminology can make even the most technically astute user cringe, encryption is fairly simple." I agree, although the rest of this article seems to prove me wrong. "It's the process of scambling and unscrambling information." Partly. It's confidentially (what you said above--making sure secret things stay secret), integrity (making sure data doesn't get modified in transit), authentication (the digital analogue of a signature), and non-repudiation (making sure someone can't say something and then later deny saying it). Cryptography is a lot more than simple encryption. "Encryption products showed up when MIS managers adopted two basic encryption technologies from the federal government: private and public-key encryption." Nothing correct here. The Federal government has no public-key cryptography standards; MIS managers have nothing to adopt from the Federal government. You might be thinking of DES, a symmetric encryption algorithm. (More on this confusion below.) In any case, commercial use of cryptography products has developed completely independently from government interference. In fact, things like export control and key escrow are making it harder to buy secure commercial products, not easier. "With private key encryption, the sends and recieve are the holders and use the same key (algorithm) to secure information." No. First off, private-key encryption is a bad term; use "symmetric encryption." Second, I'm not sure what they are the holders of. With symmetric encryption, both the sender and the receiver must have the same key; that may be what you mean. In any case, the key and the algorithm are completely seperate. This is one of the cornerstones of post-Medieval cryptography. "With public key encryption, senders and receivers hold a commonly used public key, with an additional private key held only by specific institutions." Not even close. With public-key encryption, each receiver has a public key and a private key. The public key is published. The private key is held, in secret, by the receiver. To send a message to someone, the sender gets the public key form some public database and uses it to encrypt the message. The receiver uses his private key to decrypt it. There are no specific institutions that have additional private keys, unless you are thinking about key escrow systems (which are related, but not the same). "To protect systems from the loss of the key, many vendors offer assymetric encypion, which uses two keys." Sort of. Assymetric encryption is the same as public-key encryption (just another word), and there are two keys. But the reason for using public-key encryption is not to prevent the loss of a key, but to facilitate key management. (With symmetric encryption, both the sender and receiver have to share a key. How this sharing takes place can be very complicated.) "Users can choose from products based on various schemes. Beware, however, that even stronger encryption methods are on the horizon and destined for the next generation of encryption products. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is expected to complete and Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) by the end of the year." Even NIST has said that AES will not be finalized before 2000. And AES is just a new symmetric algorithm; it has nothing to do with public-key cryptography. "The new standard wil luse a 128-bit block size, with key lengths of 128-, 192-, and 256-bits, as opposed to the current 64-bit blocks with 56-bit key standard." True. The current standard is DES. "RSA Data Security also has proposed its own algorithm to content for the new AES standard." Sort of. NIST has solicited proposals for algorithms. Fifteen groups submitted, including RSA Data Security. RSADSI is competing with other groups--Cylink, IBM, Entrust, Counterpane Systems, NTT, etc--not with NIST. NIST does not hav an algorithm. "RSA's extensions to DES, RC4 and RC5 implement multiple keys as well as digital signatures." Many mistakes here. RSADSI submitted RC6 to the AES process, which uses many ideas from RC5. It has nothing to do with DES or RC4. I'm not sure why multiple keys is something to talk about; as I said above, every algorithm post the Middle Ages uses multiple keys. And digital signatures have nothing to do with the AES process. AES is a new symmetric encryption algorithm; digital signatures are done with public key cryptography. They are different. "Another contender is Blowfish II." I submitted this algorithm. We called it Twofish, but some early press reports called it Blowfish II. "The Blowfish scheme, often referred to as PGP (Pretty Good Privacy), lets the sending and receiving computers negotiate a complex number." First, Blowfish is never referred to as PGP. Blowfish is a symmetric encryption algorithm. PGP is an email security product. PGP could have decided to use Blowfish, but it used IDEA and CAST instead. Those are two different encrytpion algorithms. And neither PGP, nor Blowfish, nor anything else discussed to or alluded to in this article, involve sending and receiving computers negotiating complex numbers. "That number is used to scamble the transmission and unscramble the data that is received." What you mean to say, I think, is that PGP uses public-key cryptography for key exchange. The sender uses the reciver's public key to encrypt a session key, and that session key is used to encrypt the email message. "For more on encryption and encryption products, a buyer's first stop should be the International Computer Security Association. This ICSA is an independent organization that tests and certifies security products." ICSA is a private for-profit company, despite what the name implies. And while they do do some testing and certifying of security products, they do not test or certify encryption products. Honestly, I can't believe this article made it into print. Don't you have editors? Bruce Schneier President, Counterpane Systems Author, Applied Cryptography http://www.counterpane.com

1 0

CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM - June 24, 1998
by CTIA Daily News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

===================================== Welcome to today's edition of the CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM. Please click on the icon for the most important news in wireless communications today. CALEA Summit being held July 21 & 22 in Washington, DC. Register Now!! Call (202) 785-0081 =====================================

1 0