December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re: IP: The virtual president
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Lazlo Toth wrote: >"Someone else," aka "Flagship" == "The People"? > >-Lazlo > no, Lazlo... don't be naive; "The People" dont have any say. "Someone else," aka "Flagship" == "Geo. Bush" I said (documented) in 1986 during Reagan's presidency: Geo. Bush will be the last American President to complete his elected term of office. Geo. Bush had not yet been elected President... attila out... (Arkancide?) ~~~ absolutely incredible article; a perfect description and analysis of our Virtual President, Bill "Bubba" Clinton. and, hopefully he takes the Virtual Agenda Hillary with him. Missy Kelly deserves at least a Pulitzer prize for this one! and Joseph Farah, publisher of World News Daily, shows that he has what it takes to lead the fourth estate. attila out... (for real) > > >At 5:21 PM -0700 9/28/98, you wrote: >>From: Jean Staffen <jstaffen(a)flash.net> >>Subject: IP: The virtual president >>Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998 22:22:11 -0500 (CDT) >>To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com >> >>This is the most INCREDIBLE article. I never thought I'd read something >>like this in the mainstream media!!! -Jean >> >> >> The virtual president=20 >> =20 >> >> By Missy Kelly=20 >> Copyright 1998, WorldNetDaily.com=20 >> >> "You know, by the time you become the leader of a >> country, someone else makes all the decisions." -- Bill >> Clinton September 4, 1998=20 >[snip] > __________________________________________________________________________ go not unto usenet for advice, for the inhabitants thereof will say: yes, and no, and maybe, and I don't know, and fuck-off. _________________________________________________________________ attila__

1 0

GoLive CyberStudio Trial Activation Key
by support＠golive.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Fritzie, Thank you for trying out GoLive CyberStudio. Your official 30-day activation key is: MWT4QWF7F8WP7GJJ You'll need to enter this key when you first start-up the software. If you have questions about how to use the Tryout software, GoLive's knowledgeable Technical Support staff is available to assist you. We suggest you first check the Technical Support section of our Web site www.golive.com. If you don't find your answers there, please send us an email at support(a)golive.com or call 1-800-554-6638. When you are ready to purchase GoLive CyberStudio or if you want to know more about why GoLive CyberStudio is the best product for Web site design, please return to our Web site or contact me at 1-800-554-6638 or 1-650-463-1580. Sincerely, Maria Jeronimo Operations Coordinator GoLive Systems, Inc. customercare(a)golive.com

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Petro wrote: > >> Had Microsoft, for example, been required to publish their > >> API's by the market we wouldn't be spending all this effort > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > >You state free-market and then you are *requiring* someone to > >do something? How do you resolve that contradiction? Require > >= Force != Free[dom] > > Required as in purchasers large and small saying "You > don't include your source code, we won't buy it". *Require* per say is a bad term for the use of economic power. But the market didn't "require" Microsoft to do so (see Microsoft's financial statements), so why should the government step in and force something that is contrary to the market? The rest of Jim's sentence read "we wouldn't be spending all this effort and money on the current [Department of Justice] proceedings." Which tells me that require means certain segments of the market telling Microsoft you will do this or we will fuck you over with the borrowcrats we own, which is exactly what has happened. The elements lacked sufficient economic power to sway Microsoft, and they lacked sufficient political power until they ganged up together. A loose coalition to gain via use of DOJ antitrust force what they good not gain in a free market. That is political power, not economic. What is rather ironic is that the same Antitrust laws they are trying to bash Microsoft with are what prevented them from forming an economic (instead of under-the-table political) coalition that could have made Microsoft change its practices without resorting to non-free-market forces. Matt

4 3

Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 15:25:34 -0700 (PDT) > From: bram <bram(a)gawth.com> > Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code) > I've never heard anyone say it's unfair, I've just heard people claim that You haven't been reading this thread very closely have you? Lot's of organizations and people are claiming it's unfair in their refusal to use it based upon the conditions of code distribution. "It's not fair, I can't make money off your work.....<whine, whine, whine>" ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 15:25:32 -0700 > statements), so why should the government step in and force something > that is contrary to the market? If Microsofts actions were prohibitive and they didn't set out with specific intentions of denying fair competition (there have been quite a few documents and transcripts released that show this pre-meditated intent) then it wouldn't need to. The reality is that we don't live in a free-market, but rather a rather lightly regulated one. Microsoft got a tad too greedy in fixing their software so that specific competitors would not be able to use it, this in itself may not be a crime. However it *does* deny the consumer the choice and that most certainly is a crime. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed? (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 16:50:34 -0400 > From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> > Subject: Is the .to (Tonga) domain completely rogue and should be removed? > 1. Performing traceroutes and other analyses seems to indicate that > this domain is NOT being used for communication with entities > legitimately located (legally, not only geographically) within the > sovereignty of the Kingdom of Tonga, as intended. Intended by who? As far as I know there are no legal limitations on applying for and receiving a domain from anywhere through the suitable authority. There is most certainly zero law that regulates where the owners of those domains may reside or operate. Snark hunt. > 2. Clearly criminal and malicious activites are arising from sites to > which Tonga has provided comfort and sanctuary. I got nothing against nailing spammers, but simply being a sex related site isn't a crime. > 3. Therefore, I call for a process whereby it can be determined as to > whether or not it is appropriate to decommission the Tongan domain due > to negligence, mismanagement, and having allowed it to become an > attractive resource for criminal activities. I do not believe the > Tongan domain serves any legitimate purpose as an internet resource. Irrelevant unless you own the right to administre the tonga domain. Do you? I vote *NO*. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

ANNOUNCEMENT: RPK SECURITY AWARDED PATENTS FOR ENCRYPTONITE ENGINE IN U.S. AND NEW ZEALAND
by Jack Oswald / CEO / RPK Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You have received this message because at some time in the past your name was submitted to our e-mail mailing list database. If you do not wish (or no longer wish) to receive announcements, updates and news concerning the RPK Encryptonite Engine or the RPK InvisiMail e-mail security products, please forward this message to remove(a)rpkusa.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- MEDIA ALERT CONTACT Paula Miller Lyn Oswald Nadel Phelan, Inc. RPK Security Inc. 408-439-5570 x277 212-488-9891 paulam(a)nadelphelan.com lynoswald(a)rpkusa.com RPK SECURITY AWARDED PATENTS FOR ENCRYPTONITE ENGINE IN U.S. AND NEW ZEALAND SAN FRANCISCO, CA. September 15, 1998 - RPK Security, Inc., a technology leader in fast public key encryption, today announced that the technology behind the company's uniquely fast public key cryptosystem, the RPK Encryptonite Engine, was awarded U.S. patent number 5,799,088 on August 25, 1998 and New Zealand patent number 277,128 on August 17, 1998. Based on the proven mathematics of Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange, the RPK Encryptonite Engine combines all the benefits of other public key systems (authentication, digital signatures and digital certificates) with the speed of a secret key system into one algorithm. With the superior performance offered by RPK's Encryptonite Engine, applications requiring streaming data, sound, video or large numbers of transactions, such as credit card payments, receive instantaneous responses and secure communication links. "We believe these patents give us a significant, unique and enforceable competitive advantage over other providers of public key encryption products," said Jack Oswald, president and CEO of RPK Security. "The RPK patents confirm our technology leadership in strong and fast public key cryptography." With development and distribution facilities outside of the U.S., RPK Security is able to provide its customers with a worldwide strong encryption solution that is available globally, unlike competing products that are restricted by U.S. export regulations. ABOUT RPK SECURITY Founded in 1995, RPK Security, Inc. is a technology leader in fast public key cryptography. Its flagship RPK Encryptonite Engine, a uniquely fast and strong public key encryption technology, is available worldwide in custom hardware and software toolkits on multiple platforms. Developed from widely accepted security mathematics and techniques, the RPK Encryptonite Engine is easily embedded into new and existing hardware and software applications. RPK's cryptographic research and product development is based in New Zealand, Switzerland and the U.K, with worldwide sales and marketing operations in San Francisco, CA. Visit RPK's website at www.rpkusa.com or call (212) 488-9891.

1 0

FBI Responds to Barr
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The FBI today responded to accusations by Rep. Bob Barr of "an effort by the Department of Justice to obtain massive new enforcement powers in the closing days of the 105th Congress": http://jya.com/fbi-barr.htm DoJ promises to provide a response tomorrow.

1 0

Re: advertisement (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 17:53:09 -0700 (PWT) > From: Max Inux <maxinux(a)openpgp.net> > Subject: Re: advertisement > <SnIpPaGe> > >1-800-781-7046 ext.6053 > I am impressed, this thing follows the laws of California, mighty > impressive. Both a 1-800 number to call, an email address of a real I called and requested they take all ssz.com addresses from all their lists. I also passed the number along to quite a few anti-spammers. You really should avail yourself of the opportunity to leave the gentleman a nice considerate message. As to having auto-mated removal, I didn't ask to be added so somebody want to explain to me why I should do anything to stop receiving this traffic? Seems to me the only ethical mechanism it auto-remove on first transmission without a subscription request. Computers are *supposed* to make our lives *easier*. Some folks seem to have forgotten this. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

2 1

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (and vague ideas for additions) > I don't want government back doors in any software I use, but this > kind of restriction is the wrong way to avoid them. The right way is > through the GNU GPL, You just pegged my bogometer. The GNU GPL discourages the sale of proprietary software by prohibiting anything using code covered by the license from being proprietary, and that's right. The proposed Cypherpunks license discourages the distribution of software with key recovery (= government back doors) by prohibiting anything using code covered by the license from having key recovery, and that's wrong. Both these licenses would be trying to promote their propagators' goals through restrictions on code re-use. However, Cypherpunks and GNU types don't have exactly the same goals. GNU types consider the availability of good, non-proprietary software to be paramount, whereas Cypherpunks generally consider the use of good cryptography in useful applications to be paramount, whether the code behind it is free or expensive, open-source or proprietary (although proprietary code often ends up being bad crypto). Companies will not put good crypto in useful applications if it necessitates that they all but give up whatever intellectual property rights they had to other parts -- even non-crypto-related parts -- of the application, so the GPL is clearly not the best license for to promote Cypherpunk goals. On a different tangent, lemme suggest some vague ideas for a few potential requirements: Warnings about proprietary code: Authors of products using CPL-covered code which do not release all source code must either a> clearly demonstrate that none of the unreleased code can have a negative impact on security or b> place a message on any marketing materials or documentation mentioning the product's security features saying "For important warnings about this product's security, see <url>." CPL advert: Authors of products using CPL-covered code are required to include with their copyright information some message like "This product uses code covered by the Cypherpunk License for its security features. See <url> for more information." and are requested to include references to the site in other convenient places. This site, of course, need not be limited to dry legalese about the license, but may include vivid descriptions of driftnet wiretaps and other mischief perpetrated by NSA and friends, cryptopolitical rants, or even tools for building and setting up various cryptostuff. Note the "may;" lots of stuff requires lots of work, and so, unless there was sort of backing from a civil-liberties organization with staff-hours to spare or some miraculous effort of miracle of organization...how's that secure talk client going? Strength requirements: By default and taking into account only the published attacks on the cryptographic primitives used, an average of at least 2^79 operations must be required for anybody (law-enforcement or not) to compromise the product's security features. If and only if laws restrict this software's use or sale, a second version may be created with lower strength, and the stronger version may operate at lower strength when necessary for smooth interoperation, provided that the user knows before sending any information that the connection uses weakened encryption. The weaker version must be clearly marked as such (i.e., "Widget 2.4 Export" vs. "Widget 2.4"). Fact sheet: Authors of products using CPL-covered code are requested but not required to create a sort of security fact sheet detailing the technical aspects of the product's security features -- * algorithms and key lengths * a precise description of the breadth of the security features * a description of the threat model used in the design process -- and issues relating to trust in the product -- * authors of algorithms and code, if available * the level of openness of the source * places to obtain whatever source was released * information on any independent analyses of the product's security * information on independent verifications of the fact sheet -- followed by a summary placing this in more practical contexts. I'd imagine any license including this would also include a form form the fact sheets and some places to send them. > which would enable people to check the source code of a modified > version for anything suspicious. Note that I'm only on one of the lists; Cc: replies to <nobody(a)replay.com>. :)

2 1