December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Apology
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Might have just posted a message intended for coderpunks to the list, depending on whether toad still forwards. Sorry.

1 0

thinking about you and http://www.qainfo.se/~lb/crypto_ag.htm
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tuesday 7/7/98 6:57 PM Laszlo Baranyi You DID NOT mention the Swiss radio international radio broadcasts. http://www.qainfo.se/~lb/crypto_ag.htm Rep McKinney and Sen Grassley now have copies. Send me a snail mail address and I will send you a copy. Using postcard, of course pob 14838 abq, nm 87191 usa Gustavus J Simmons Cryptanalysis and Protocol Failures COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM, November 1994, vol 37, no 11, page 56 The 'spiking' story, in obscure language. Simmons and R J Hanson http://sina.tcamc.uh.edu/~haskell/rjh/rjhres.html were two of the most responsible people for me coming to Sandia from Washington State U. Here are two of my former Ph.D. students in computer science from wsu. http://www.mhpcc.edu/general/john.html http://www.friction-free-economy.com NSA employee PAUL BRIDGE in about 1987 told me that Simmons was a security risk and that I should not talk to Simmons. In about 1992 I figured out something was fishy and began to talk to Simmons again. Simmons told me that he asked NSA employees Morris and Proto 1 NSA is sorry it delegated responsibility for implementation of electronic locks in the us nuclear arsenal to Sandia. 2 NSA wants the business back. Simmons told me neither Morris or Proto would respond to his question. Let's ALL http://www.wpiran.org/ hope for settlement of this UNFORTUNATE MESS. bill

1 0

Announcing Extensis Preflight Pro 2.0
by listmaster＠extensis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Award-Winning, Preflighting Tool from Extensis Just Got Better. http://www.extensis.com/products/pfp2/ · New! Now supports all major graphics applications! · Inspect, correct and collect print jobs for perfect prepress delivery. · Advanced features include profiles, PDF creation, and AppleScript Automation. · FREE! 5 free copies of Collect Pro 2.0 with each copy of Preflight Pro 2.0! In May, Preflight Pro 1.0 received the 1998 Apple Design Award for Best Look and Feel. Just wait 'til they try 2.0. The best just got better. Extensis Preflight Pro is a comprehensive preflight solution designed to save prepress professionals significant time, money and materials. Preflight Pro inspects your documents and corrects problems to ensure they are error-free prior to printing. With an interface that mimics the traditional prepress workflow, Preflight Pro 2.0 provides you with a familiar environment to efficiently review files prior to printing. Further, Preflight Pro now supports documents in all the major graphics applications including Adobe PageMaker, Illustrator, Photoshop, QuarkXPress, Macromedia FreeHand, and Multi-Ad Creator2. New in Preflight 2.0 is the capability to automate the preflight process. Based on your custom settings for pass/fail, Preflight Pro uses 'watch folders' to determine which files are complete and ready for printing. Users can set the automation window for tasks, such as collecting a job or running an AppleScript. For greater utility, Preflight Pro now includes 5 free copies of Collect Pro 2.0. Give Collect Pro to any creative professional you work with to help them perfectly collect a job for hand-off to the prepress house. Collect Pro eliminates the problems of missing file information that can delay a job. Extensis Preflight Pro 2.0 will dramatically streamline your preflight workflow, saving you time, materials, headaches and money. In the world of preflighting, the best just got better. Introducing your Extensis PREFLIGHT SPECIALIST! For personal service or for more information, please contact your Preflight Specialist at (503) 274-2020 Ext. 167 or email to: mmoragne(a)extensis.com . For more information, to order, or to download a FREE, 30-day demo of Extensis Preflight Pro, please visit our web site at http://www.extensis.com/products/pfp2/ Or call at (800) 796-9798 or (503) 274-2020. * Preflight Pro is available for Macintosh users for $399.95 (includes 5 free copies of Collect Pro 2.0). * Special Extensis Customer Offer: Buy Preflight Pro for only $349.95 (SAVE $50! Includes 5 free copies of Collect Pro 2.0). * Special Upgrade Offer for PreFlight Pro 1.0 owners: Upgrade to Preflight Pro 2.0 for only $99.95 (SAVE $300! Includes 5 free copies of Collect Pro 2.0). Preflight Pro 2.0 and Collect Pro 2.0 are compatible with QuarkXPress 3.31 or later, including QuarkXPress 4.0, Adobe PageMaker 6.5 and later, Adobe Illustrator 5.5 and later, Adobe Photoshop 3.0.4 and later, Macromedia FreeHand 5.5 and later, and Multi-Ad Creator2 version 1.0. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ PS. We have made every effort to ensure this message is being sent only to people who have expressed interest in Extensis products. If we have sent this to you in error, please accept our apologies and reply with REMOVE in the subject line for automatic exclusion from future communications. If you know someone who would like to be on our mailing list have them send an email to listmaster(a)extensis.com with ADD in the subject line and their email address in the body.

1 0

Junger Press Release
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: jvd-announce(a)samsara.law.cwru.edu Subject: Press Release: Judge holds software is not protected speech Date: Wed, 08 Jul 1998 09:39:36 -0300 From: "Junger v. Daley Announcements" <jvd(a)samsara.law.cwru.edu> Federal District Court Holds That Software Publishers Are Not Protected by the First Amendment Government Wins Summary Judgment in Junger v. Daley Judge Gwin's Opinion Is Available on Line ---------------------------------------------------------------- Cleveland, Ohio, Wednesday, July 8, 1998 For Immediate Release For More Information Contact: Peter D. Junger (216) 368-2535 <junger(a)samsara.law.cwru.edu> Raymond Vasvari (216) 662-1780 <freespeech(a)mail.multiverse.com> Or see URL: http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/comp_law/jvd/ To be added to, or removed from, the list of those who were sent this press release, please send e-mail to <lawsuit(a)upaya.multiverse.com>. _________________________________________________________________ Cleveland, Ohio, July 8 -- On July 3, 1998 Judge Gwin of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Ohio held that computer programs are not writings protected by the constitution because they are ``inherently functional'' and granted summary judgment dismissing a suit challenging regulations that forbid the publication of encryption programs on the Internet or the World Wide Web. The suit was brought by Peter Junger, a law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, to enjoin the enforcement of export regulations on encryption software that prevent him from publishing his class materials and articles for his course in Computing and the Law on the Internet because they contain some encryption programs. Junger claimed in his suit that those encryption programs were writings that were entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment. ``Of course they are writings,'' Junger says, ``I know because I wrote some of them. And I need to be able to publish them if I am ever going to be able to explain to lawyers and law students how computers work and how the law should be applied to computing.'' The government, on the other hand, argued that its export regulations, which require that one obtain a license from the Commerce Department before publishing materials containing encryption software on the Internet or the World Wide Web, seek only to restrict the distribution of encryption software itself, not ideas on encryption. And Judge Gwin agreed with the government, finding that: ``the Export Regulations are constitutional because encryption source code is inherently functional, because the Export Regulations are not directed at source code's expressive elements, and because the Export Regulations do not reach academic discussions of software, or software in print form.'' In a related case in California brought by mathematics professor Daniel Bernstein, Federal District Court Judge Patel held that computer programs are speech that is protected by the First Amendment, but Judge Gwin rejected that argument, saying: ``The Bernstein court's assertion that `language equals protected speech' is unsound. `Speech' is not protected simply because we write it in a language.'' It is Judge Gwin's position that computer source code is a purely functional device: ``The court in Bernstein misunderstood the significance of source code's functionality. Source code is `purely functional,' in a way that the Bernstein Court's examples of instructions, manuals, and recipes are not. Unlike instructions, a manual, or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes. While a recipe provides instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption.'' There is thus a clear split between the two courts: Judge Patel holding that computer software is protected by the First Amendment and Judge Gwin holding that it isn't. The Bernstein case is on appeal and Professor Junger says that he intends to appeal Judge Gwin's decision: ``We have had almost no financial support for this case, but the issue of whether encryption software and software in general is protected like other writings under the First Amendment, or whether it is to be treated as a special exception like obscenity and fighting words as Judge Gwin held, is so important that we will have to scrape up the resources somehow to bring an appeal.'' Judge Gwin's opinion is now available at <http://jya.com/pdj11.htm> and is mirrored at <http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/comp_law/jvd/pdj11.html>. -30-

1 0

FREE XXX VIDEO for your site !!
by webmaster＠nudevision.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thats right FREE XXX VIDEO for your website.... - increase traffic - increase banner sales - BOOST your profit - Can be used by FREE SITE and PAY SITES FREE SITE webmasters go to http://free.nudevision.com MEMBERSHIP SITE webmasters go to http://www.nudevision.com/webmasters/index.htm We are offering PAY SITE website webmasters 90 MINUTE FULL LENGTH MOVIES which means SALES SALES SALES !! EARN 10 BUCKS A RAW CLICK AND GET FREE TRAFFIC !! "WHAT? Are you guys nuts?" Well maybe a little..... go to http://www.traffictraders2.com for more details. GAY SITE webmasters click here: http://www.studvision.com/webmasters/index.html Best Regards, The Cytron Gang Cytron Technologies Ltd. Cytron Communications Ltd.

1 0

RE: RSA in perl illegal to export (Re: Junger et al.)
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I still have a few of those shirts left (I ate the cost ... along with a few copies of Secret Power). If anyone wants to do this, I will be happy to donate the T-shirt (and be an "arms" supplier). In fact, one of the people who expressed an interest in buying the T-shirt wanted to send one to Dave Letterman (Letterman was hot at the time). Did you ever do it? Ern -----Original Message----- From: Chris Liljenstolpe [SMTP:cds@mcmurdo.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 1998 3:31 PM To: Adam Back; jim.burnes(a)ssds.com Cc: Ernest Hua; egerck(a)laser.cps.softex.br; cypherpunks(a)toad.com; cryptography(a)c2.net Subject: Re: RSA in perl illegal to export (Re: Junger et al.) Greetings, There are t-shirts out there with both human readable and machine readable (bar code) versions of the RSA in 3 code.... Wear it when boarding an international flight.... They even state that they are a munition and ITAR controlled in BIG letters on the back... Chris On Wed, Jul 08, 1998 at 11:04:44AM +0100, Adam Back wrote: > > Jim Burnes writes: > > Obviously there is no difference between 10 lines of PERL and > > 1500 lines of assembler (or machine code). > > One of Peter Junger's examples (I think used in the case) is the RSA > in 2/3 lines. He actually obtained the US export administrations > written decisions on which of a small collection of titchy programs > was exportable. RSA in 3 lines of perl they stated was illegal to > export. > > So fun things with RSA are possible because they have decided that it > is not exportable, so perhaps you could export it on a floppy, or as > your .signature, with media cameras rolling, and try to get yourself > arrested for willful violation of dumb export laws. > > Adam > -- > Have you exported RSA today? --> http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/ > > print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> > )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc `

1 0

CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM - July 8, 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 / attachment for the most important news in wireless communications today. =============================================

1 0

Re: Initial summary/analysis: Junger v. Daley
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Thanks to Greg for the excellent summary and analysis. Responses by Peter Junger and his attorneys, those involved with Bernstein and Karn, and others on the technical and legal interpretation would be welcome. On the interplay among the three cases: We have heard that there was meeting in DC of the three teams with the US side. And that there may have been a report on this meeting at the recent DC security conference. Is there a public report available? Note: Greg meant to quote Judge Gwin on source code: "all but *un*intelligible to most people." The contrast between Patel and Gwin remind of the campaign of Wassenaar members to claim relaxation of crypto controls while not truly doing so, as in the recent Irish and US press release deceptions. More are expected as the US trade and crypto czars make their global rounds to arrange overt-covert deals for marketing munitions. The complicity of the banks and giant corps is not surprising with their legacy of doing just that -- as one defense expert says, expect ex-gov crypto watchdogs to aid the market titans to lure government buyers while peddling cheap knockoffs to voters. Amazing that the NYT sent up that trial balloon for government access to key strokes in lieu of GAK. Who's pushing that, working on the technology?

1 0

Ephemeral, was RE: Junger et al.
by Ed Gerck 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Regarding my comment below: >Ed Gerck writes: >[...] > > BTW, I think that Gwin was struggling to express the notion that > > source code (syntax) is a device whenever there is a clear binding > > between that source code and known semantics, together with proper > > pragmatics (the enviroment, as defined in semiotics), in order to > > perform the desired function. > I received some private postings which questioned it by questioning its logical consequences, as for example: >So the judge should forbid publishing/export of Applied Cryptography >and the PGP Book with source code, right ? > First, IMO, this subject is hard to discuss because it is politically involved and also applies just to a particular set of countries -- so it is not based on a "universal" ruling. Further, I also think it is absurd to try to outlaw cryptography because it is essential and not just to obtain privacy (as in my posting on logical semantics and crypto, some months ago [1]). In fact, I think that cryptography is needed to provide *secure routing* [1] (a property that is more basic than secure content and which I think will be impossible to forbid in the future). However, I also think that the arguments being thought by each side may carry their own intrinsic worth. Further, even though the whole subject is IMO ephemeral because unworkable, some of those arguments may have a far reaching consequence and transcend the issue. Should we overlook that? IMO, no. Even thrash can be recycled ;-) My remark above was in this line of reasoning. So, it ought not to be extrapolated to printed books -- I am not at all concerned about the legal aspects. In fact, laws can be wrong and IMO this is a clear example. But, regarding printed books -- yes, the comment above (and others in that line) are right. If this logic exercise is carried to its fully immoral end, then books should not be allowed to carry complete and workable source code. Which does not show that the argument is illogical, just immoral. Technically, the argument is sound. As Hume pointed out a long time ago, if we were guided only by reason and logic then surely I should prefer to destroy the rest of the world instead of enduring even a small pain in one of my fingers. While this shows that logic is not all, it also shows that one cannot deny logic by moral or ethics but rather define what precedes what in case of conflict, for each society. While this can have different answers for different societies, eg where in some suicide is moral, the cryptography issue may take a different twist if the link to secure routing is further investigated and cryptography is not only used just for secure content as it is today. Thanks, Ed Gerck =========== Reference: [1] http://www.mcg.org.br/trustdef.htm#A.4.1 ______________________________________________________________________ Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck egerck(a)novaware.cps.softex.br http://novaware.cps.softex.br --- Meta-Certificate Group member, http://www.mcg.org.br ---

1 0

RE: Junger et al.
by Trei, Peter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> -----Original Message----- > From: Mok-Kong Shen [SMTP:mok-kong.shen@stud.uni-muenchen.de] > Anonymous wrote: > > > Does it matter who might 'read' the material, in regards to the > protection > > of free speech? Whether it is written so that Russians or computers > might > > be able to read it? If source code is written on a napkin, it can be > > currently exported, but what if tomorrow a vendor announces a 'napkin > > computer' which can directly read from napkins akin to a super-low > densiy > > floppy disc. > > Put the source code on a neuro-disk and you can export it under > any crypto law that can ever be invented till eternity. > > M. K. Shen [Trei, Peter] Tell that to the thousands forbidden to leave the nations which claim or claimed to own them, on the basis that they once had access to state secrets. The thankfully defunct Soviet Union regularly forbade dissidents to emigrate, on the basis that at some point in their lives they had had access to 'sensitive' information. I have no doubt that similar restrictions could be put in place in other nations. Peter Trei

2 1