December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Junger et al.
by jkthomson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has dismissed a law professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the export of computer data-scrambling technology. Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which prevented Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter Junger from posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not violate the constitutional right to free speech. The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court ruling last August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes telling the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of speech subject to First Amendment protection. "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "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." Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a version of source code converted into an actual software program that could be run on a computer. The US government appealed the California decision and the issue may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court would overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key." Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an increasingly critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global communications over the Internet. But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by terrorists and international criminals to hide their activities, have instituted strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling products. Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court misunderstood the difference between source code and compiled code. "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative nature of software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, but it does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is speech deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D [06.07.98] ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 [05.14.98] ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of tnbnog BBS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, standardized, and understood, in that order =======================================================================

1 0

RE: Junger et al.
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't understand ... Did anyone demonstrate the "functionalness" of any arbitrary language via a scanner and a compiler? Why doesn't Gwin understand that the moment one successfully claims that a specific class of source code is not speech by the virtue of the fact that a compiler can transform it automatically into executable code which performs a function, then ANY speech of ANY sort is fundamentally vulnerable to being classified as functional as soon as a compiler can transform it into real machine code. So today, I can write the following: 1. Find a container. 2. Fill container with explosive substance. 3. Move container to target location. 4. Detonate container. As soon as I have a compiler and a target machine that can execute these instructions, suddenly this is not speech. However, before this compiler and machine combo exists, event the electronic form of this is speech! How could this be? Ern -----Original Message----- From: jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Junger et al. Reuters 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has dismissed a law professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the export of computer data-scrambling technology. Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which prevented Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter Junger from posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not violate the constitutional right to free speech. The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court ruling last August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes telling the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of speech subject to First Amendment protection. "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "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." Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a version of source code converted into an actual software program that could be run on a computer. The US government appealed the California decision and the issue may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court would overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key." Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an increasingly critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global communications over the Internet. But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by terrorists and international criminals to hide their activities, have instituted strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling products. Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court misunderstood the difference between source code and compiled code. "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative nature of software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, but it does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is speech deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D [06.07.98] ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 [05.14.98] ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of tnbnog BBS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, standardized, and understood, in that order =======================================================================_

5 4

No Subject
by VICTOR HERRERA 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

can u help me thank u

1 0

MAKE MORE MONEY ONLINE
by info＠homebusinesscentral.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friend and Internet Entrepreneur, Discover little known ways of how to promote virtually any product, service or idea online and see income within 24 hours. Guranteed! It's finally here! **ALL NEW** E-Mail Marketing Home Study Course reveals how to use responsible, targeted, e-mail marketing in your business to boost Web site traffic, generate leads, sell products, and make more sales online. Learn totally new information about how to e-mail your sales message to prospects and sell your products and services online without getting flamed. Discover detailed techniques for using opt-in marketing, compiling mailing lists, the secrets of writing ad copy, and much more. You will learn: How to create targeted e-mail lists of prospects who are as much as 5 times more responsive than names you can rent or buy. Discover which e-mail management and sending software is best. (And Receive A FREE 10 Day Trial Version Of The Best One) Discover which teaser ads and subject lines get your mail opened and responded to quickly. How to use e-mail to generate qualified traffic to a Web site. And Much Much More.... You will receive an extensive step by step course guiding you every step of the way! Plus as part of this national marketing test if you ACT NOW! you are going to receive as a bonus gift: "The Secrets To Successful Search Engine Submission" Audio series Learn how to get on top and stay on top! "I generated 19 brand new paying customers in less than a week with this course" Thank You To learn more about this exciting course please visit us at http://www.homebusinesscentral.net/emarket.html This is a very limited offer, so act now! To be removed from this list please respond with "remove" in the subject field World Tek Inc. 7210 Jordan Ave. Canoga Park CA. 91303 1-818-718-9429

1 0

RE: Junger et al.
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think we are in violent agreement here ... Except that it seems odd that speech is no longer 1st amendment protected as soon as it can be interpreted by a machine to do something. So, then, if I want to deny you first amendment protections for something, I can simply write a compiler to turn your words into machine executable code, and suddenly, your words are no longer protected speech. How could that be a reasonable interpretation of functional versus not? Secondly, Gwin said that encryption is a special class of software which is MORE functional. This is definitely a misunderstanding, to say the least. I don't see how any particular class of software is necessarily more or less functional than other classes of software. In the functional sense, all software, when compiled and executed is functional, period (whether it performs according to its original design is irrelevant). Ern -----Original Message----- From: Ed Gerck [SMTP:egerck@laser.cps.softex.br] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 9:09 PM To: Ernest Hua Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; 'cryptography(a)c2.net' Subject: RE: Junger et al. On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Ernest Hua wrote: >So today, I can write the following: > >1. Find a container. >2. Fill container with explosive substance. >3. Move container to target location. >4. Detonate container. > >As soon as I have a compiler and a target machine that can execute these >instructions, suddenly this is not speech. However, before this >compiler and machine combo exists, event the electronic form of this is >speech! > >How could this be? Gwin has written a phrase which deserves more analysis, IMO -- free from political overtones if we want to be impartial. The phrase can be reworded as: "source code is a device, that actually does a function" The difference and importance here is between syntatic and semantics. Your 4-instruction source code above is not a device today -- it cannot perform any function. It has only syntatics, not the "how to". But, if there were a machine that could supply the proper semantics (ie, actually perform the functions 1-4) then your source code above would be a device. Further, your source code may not be a device today but be a device tomorrow. As another example, bringing together one pound of inert metal with another one pound of the same inert metal was not considered to be explosive -- until U235 was used for the inert metal and properly compressed. The difference is semantic, not syntatic. In that, Gwin is correct. Can the source code actually perform a function? Then, it is a device. Irrespective of the needed platform, in the same way that an electric shaver is a device irrespective of the local availablity of an appropriate power outlet. IMO, even though I consider Gwin to be correct to a very large extent, widespread use of crypto will not come from lifiting such bans ... but from real need -- which does not outweigh the hassle, today. The EFF has a wrong target there. Do you know how much Internet e-mail traffic is encrypted today? Can you believe less than 10%? Notwithstanding the rethoric exercises and limelight it may provide, talking about encryption export bans may not be as effective as desigining better and easier uses of strong crypto -- that can then really drive market, legislation and courts. Need to use is a better key than need to know, it seems. Cheers, Ed Gerck > >Ern > > -----Original Message----- > From: jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com] > Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Junger et al. > > > > Reuters > > 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has >dismissed a law > professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the >export of > computer data-scrambling technology. > > Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which >prevented > Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter >Junger from > posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not >violate > the constitutional right to free speech. > > The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court >ruling last > August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes >telling > the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of >speech > subject to First Amendment protection. > > "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually >performs > the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "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." > > Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a >version of source > code converted into an actual software program that could be run >on a > computer. > > The US government appealed the California decision and the issue >may > ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. > > Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court >would > overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses > mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it >unreadable > without a password or software "key." > > Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an >increasingly > critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global >communications > over the Internet. > > But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by >terrorists > and international criminals to hide their activities, have >instituted > strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling >products. > > Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court >misunderstood the > difference between source code and compiled code. > > "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative >nature of > software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic >Frontier > Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, >but it > does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is >speech > deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." > > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> >www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh > jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D >[06.07.98] > ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 >[05.14.98] > ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of >tnbnog BBS > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, > standardized, and understood, in that order > >======================================================================= _ > ______________________________________________________________________ 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 ---

6 5

no subject! Anti-National ID Bill
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Where is this? Stalled. Looks dead in the water. Any further insights? H.R.3261 SPONSOR: Rep Paul (introduced 02/25/98) SUMMARY: (AS INTRODUCED) Privacy Protection Act of 1997 (sic) - Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit any Federal, State, or local government agency or instrumentality from using a social security account number or any derivative as the means of identifying any individual, except for specified social security and tax purposes. Amends the Privacy Act of 1974 to prohibit any Federal, State, or local government agency or instrumentality from requesting an individual to disclose his social security account number on either a mandatory or a voluntary basis. Prohibits any two Federal agencies or instrumentalities from implementing the same identifying number with respect to any individual, except as authorized under this Act. ---- STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status House Actions Feb 25, 98: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Mar 2, 98: Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology. Feb 25, 98: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

2 1

Best Free XXX on the net!!!!
by DOnotreply 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have compiled a list of the best free XXX sites on the net!! Take a look at: Best ever You will save a lot!

1 0

keystrokes and crooked judges
by bill payne 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I am reading http://www.jya.com/gaks-de.htm Perhaps this e-mail may interest you Best bill 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 Monday 6/8/98 7:53 AM John Young I am reading http://jya.com/sitesec.htm a bit more carefully. You have NEVER WRITTEN SO MUCH. Fishing was great. I used a $10 THE INSTANT CALLING CARD [TM] VOCALL COMMUNICATIONS CORP The World's Most advanced prepaid Calling Card which allows access with a pin of 718-2455-7091-xxx [my SECRET] in ENGLISH, SPANISH, ARABIC, URDU, KOREAN, JAPANESE, GERMAN, FRENCH, ITALIAN to call you TWICE on Saturday. At only $.14/min. I left one message about Xandi and spiking computer keyboards. Xandi MADE low-power transmitters, http://www.gernsback.com/HyperNews/get/forums/resource/226.html like the kind I MIGHT use IF I were going to spike a keyboard [most which use an 8051 http://www.apcatalog.com/cgi-bin/AP?ISBN=0125475705&LOCATION=US&FORM=FORM2] so that the keystrokes would be broadcast. This, of course, defeats crypto attempts to cipher keystrokes. But I DO NOT DO, or have to do, ILLEGAL THINGS for the FBI or any other government agency. I, as a DOE contractor employee, was protected under 10 CFR 708. http://av.yahoo.com/bin/query?p=10+cfr+708&hc=0&hs=0 But 10 CFR 708 does not appear to be working well in my case. Therefore, we had to try other remedies. VOCALL is getting real close to digital cash, one of Orlin Grabbe's interests. http://www.aci.net/kalliste/dcguide.htm I have to do mostly technical work on the digital FX this week but will try to get two notices of appeal to the Tenth circuit written. http://jya.com/whp043098.htm Morales and I, with all the publicity you and Orlin have given us, can go all the way to the Supreme Court with our genocide and crypto deficiency lawsuits. http://jya.com/whpfiles.htm Pro se, of course. Too bad NSA did not take my criticisms of its shift register work more constructively. http://jya.com/da/whpda.htm, click on Appendix S Perhaps NSA should have worked with some of us at Sandia to come-up with fixes to overcome deficiencies. This unpleasantness could have been avoided. I've had ideas to improve shift register algorithm operation before. http://www-hto.usc.edu/software/seqaln/doc/html/gfsr.3.html Let's all hope for settlement of this UNFORTUNATE matter before it gets worse. Later bill And this too. Subject: FBI agents and Junger Date: Tue, 07 Jul 1998 07:32:36 -0600 From: bill payne <billp(a)nmol.com> To: jy(a)jya.com CC: art morales <armoral(a)sandia.gov>, whitfield diffie <diffie(a)eng.sun.com>, tom carpenter - halcyon <tomcgap(a)halcyon.com>, marc rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org>, national employee rights institute <neri(a)nerinet.org>, mab(a)research.att.com, mejudson(a)mail.wdn.com, lwirbel(a)aol.com, klayman <jwatch(a)erols.com>, john gilmore <gnu(a)toad.com>, jpcarson(a)mindspring.com, jdelia(a)gnn.com, jeff debonis <76554.133(a)compuserve.com>, jay coughlan <ccns(a)nets.com>, jason vest <vestj(a)aol.com>, j orlin grabbe <kalliste(a)aci.net>, david sobel <sobel(a)epic.org>, Cindy(a)McGlashan.com Tuesday 7/7/98 7:28 AM John Young I am reading http://www.jya.com/pdj10.htm FBI agents Perez, Rodrigues, and Silva warned us about the crooked judges at the appellate level. The FBI blackmailed Perez, Rodrigues, and Silva into a cheap settlement of their race discrimination lawsuit win in Lucius Bunton's West Texas court. They all lost money. And all got divorced. Perez is a buddy of Morales and Gonzales. Gonzales and Armenta are buddies of Silva. Hugo Rodrigues moved to Florida. This information is VERY VALUABLE to Morales and me. It shapes our response to the two letters from the Tenth I put in the mail to you yesterday. NO FUTURE IN ARGUING POINTS OF LAW WITH CROOKED JUDGES. bill Counterfeiting Wiegand Wire Access Credentials Bill Payne October 16,1996 Abstract Wiegand wire access credentials are easy and inexpensive to counterfeit. Access Control & Security Systems Integration magazine, October 1996 [http://www/securitysolutions.com] published the article, Wiegand technology stands the test of time by PAUL J. BODELL, page 12 Many card and reader manufacturers offer Wiegand (pronounced wee-gand) output. However, only three companies in the world make Wiegand readers. Sensor Engineering of Hamden Conn., holds the patent for Wiegand, and Sensor has licensed Cardkey of Simi Valley, Calif., and Doduco of Pforzheim, Germany, to manufacture Wiegand cards and readers. ... A Wiegand output reader is not the same thing as a Wiegand reader, and it is important to understand the differences. In brief, Wiegand reader use the Wiegand effect to translate card information around the patented Wiegand effect in which a segment of a specially treated wire generates an electronic pulse when subjected to a specific magnetic field. If the pulse is generated when the wire is near a pick-up coil, the pulse can be detected by a circuit. Lining up several rows of wires and passing them by a cold would generate a series of pulses. Lining up two rows of wires - calling on row "zero bits" and the other "one bits" - and passing them by two different coils would generate two series of pulses, or data bits. These data bits can then be interpreted as binary data and used to control other devices. If you seal the coils in a rugged housing with properly placed magnets, and LED and some simple circuitry, you have a Wiegand reader. Carefully laminate the special wires in vinyl, and artwork, and hot-stamp a number on the vinyl, and you have a Wiegand card. IN THE BEGINNING Wiegand was first to introduce to the access control market in the late 1970s. It was immediately successful because it filled the need for durable, secure card and reader technology. Embedded in the cards, Wiegand wires cannot be altered or duplicated. ... Bodell's Last statement is incorrect. Tasks for EASILY counterfeiting Wiegand wire cards are 1 Locate the wires inside the card to read the 0s and 1s. 2 Build an ACCEPTABLE copy of the card. Bodell's clear explanation of the working of a Wiegand card can be visualized zero row | | | one row | | binary 0 1 0 0 1 representation Solutions to Task 1 A X-ray the card B MAGNI VIEW FILM, Mylar film reads magnetic fields ... Edmunds Scientific Company, catalog 16N1, page 205, C33,447 $11.75 is placed over the top of the Wiegand card. COW MAGNET, Cow magnetics allow farmers to trap metal in the stomachs of their cows. Edmunds, page 204, C31,101 $10.75 is placed under the card. Location of the wires is easily seen on the green film. Mark the position of the wires with a pen. Next chop the card vertically using a shear into about 80/1000s paper-match-sized strips. Don't worry about cutting a wire or two. Note that a 0 has the pen mark to the top. A 1 has the pen mark at the bottom. Take a business card and layout the "paper match"-like strips to counterfeit the card number desired. Don't worry about spacing. Wiegand output is self-clocking! Tape the "paper-match - like" strips to the business card. Only the FUNCTION of the card needs to be reproduced! History Breaking electronic locks was done as "work for others" at Sandia National Laboratories beginning in 1992 funded by the Federal Bureau of Investigation/Engineering Research Facility, Quantico, VA. The FBI opined that this work was SECRET/NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION. Details of the consequences of this work are covered in Fired Worker File Lawsuit Against Sandia Specialist Says He Balked When Lab Sought Electronic Picklock Software, Albuquer Journal, Sunday April 25, 1993 State-sanctioned paranoia, EE Times, January 22, 1996 One man's battle, EE Times, March 22, 1994 Damn the torpedoes, EE Times, June 6, 1994 Protecting properly classified info, EE Times, April 11, 1994 DOE to scrutinize fairness in old whistle-blower cases, Albuquerque Tribune, Nov 7 1995 DOE boss accelerates whistle-blower protection, Albuquerque Tribune, March 27, 1996 DOE doesn't plan to compensate 'old' whistle-blowers with money, Albuquerque Tribune September 27, 199

1 0

Your Home Town Provides Everything You Need
by zida27＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

YOUR HOME TOWN WILL DO 100% OF THE WORK FOR YOU WE OFFER: You the chance to own your own Home Based Business. WE OFFER: To build your Home Based Business for you. WE OFFER You financial independence. WE OFFER: You life saving and life changing products. WE OFFER: You the easiest way we know to, improve your Health, your Wealth and your Happiness. For more information Call: Our toll free 24 hr message center at 888-771-9338 Our toll free 24 hr recorded message at 888-771-9340. Reference # 1007698 our research showed you would be interested in this subject. If this is not true and you would like to be removed from our data base please call 888-771-9338 and leave your e-mail address for removal. Thank You.

1 0

New Page!
by StanSqncrs＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I made another page, which details what Capital records did to Dark Side of the Moon when they reissued on cd. Guess what they covered-up. :-) Check it out, Stan, The Desecration of 'The Dark Side of the Moon' http://members.tripod.com/StanSqncrs/DarkSide/darkside.html

1 0