December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

Re:
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

So you'd be happy to staple a check or money order for a bill to a postcard and send it off? Are you trying to be obtuse, or is it just a natural phenomenon with you? At 06:39 PM 12/9/98 -0500, Robert Wenzler wrote: > > >HaB wrote: ><snip> >> That's a good place to begin, though. "Would you send a letter to >> someone without an envelope?" "Then why not put your email in the >> electronic equivalent of one?" >> >> balance. > >Would I send a letter to someone without an envelope? >One word: postcard.

1 0

Re: Global Strike to protest Wassenaar
by Richard.Bragg＠ssa.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ever played Mornington Crescent? Try the same thing with e-mail. The idea is that only those in the game know "the rules". These rules can change at any time in any way and all "real players" can tell about the new "rules" and adjust accordingly. The idea would be to exchange nothing while make it appear to be exchanging information of real importance. OK so this will be just like any managment memo but you must get my drift. Hack together a proggy to "encrypt" a message but really just generates garbage, just like politicians. Leave patterns in it so it looks real.

1 0

Wassenaar summary (and a funny new loophole)
by ulf＠fitug.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The Wassenaar Arrangement has put up the Dec. 3 lists > agreed to by members: To summarize the crypto rules: Software is freely exportable if it has been made available without restrictions upon its further dissemination. Copyright restrictions do not count. Mass market cryto software is no longer covered by the General Software Note, but by a Cryptography Note. Under that note, mass market software and hardware is not controlled if it does not use symmetric keys longer than 64 bits and the cryptographic functionality cannot easily changed by the user. Systems that do not meet those conditions are export-controlled if they use symmetric encryption with more than 56 bit keys, algorithms based on factorization or on logarithms in finite fields with more than 512 bit keys (e.g. RSA, DH) or on discrete logarithms in other groups (such as elliptic curves) with more than 112 bits. They may be exported for personal use. There are exceptions for execution of copy-protected software and read-only media and for phones without end-to-end encryption. The list contains an amusing editorial error which would for the first time allow the export of strong crypto hardware. "Symmetric algorithm" is defined to mean 'a cryptographic algorithm using an identical key for both encryption and decryption', whereas an algorithm using 'different mathematically-related keys for encryption and decryption' is an "asymmetric algorithm". Since the definition differentiates algorithms by symmetry rather than by their cryptographic properties, there is no restriction whatsoever on asymmetric secret-key encryption algorithms. Those algorithms typically are not based on factorization or discrete logarithms. That is, they are no longer controlled by the Wassenaar arrangement. Better yet, mass-market crypto systems are not controlled if they 'do not contain a "symmetric algorithm" employing a key length exceeding 64 bits'. So you can use, say, 2048 bit RSA with an asymmetric secret-key algorithm of 128 bit key length (so the system does not contain a symmetric algorithm), and you're free to export it.

4 3

RE: Global Strike to protest Wassenaar
by Brown, R Ken 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Richard Bragg wrote: > Ever played Mornington Crescent? Try the same thing with > e-mail. The idea is that only those in the game know "the rules". > These rules can change at any time in any way and all > "real players" can tell about the new "rules" and adjust accordingly. showing of course that he either doesn't know the *real* rules of Mornington Crescent or else (more likely) doesn't want to reveal them! Oh, and this posting quite clearly wins this round - even with the new DLR extensions and the Elverson Road footbridge:-) Ken

1 0

test2
by Igor Chudov 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test

1 0

test4
by Igor Chudov 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

test4

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Anonymous Sender 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Harmon Seaver wrote: > > This isn't a ski mask burglary. We KNOW Saddam ruled Iraq. > > We KNOW what crimes were committed. Simple syllogism. > > No we don't. We only know what the propaganda mills have told us. > Twenty years ago it was a different story. The propaganda mills were working for Saddam, not against him. http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/04/1599076.php "Over the last dozen years I made 13 trips to Baghdad to lobby the government to keep CNN's Baghdad bureau open and to arrange interviews with Iraqi leaders. Each time I visited, I became more distressed by what I saw and heard - awful things that could not be reported because doing so would have jeopardized the lives of Iraqis, particularly those on our Baghdad staff." http://www.techcentralstation.com/041103H.html "It appears there is another, more troubling, reason Jordan decided not to report these hideous crimes until the regime was safely out of the way: CNN didn't want to lose its on-the-ground access to a big story." Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, and countless Iraqi refugees all report similar stories of widespread torture and murder. Is it your position that these are all propagandists? Dismissing as "propaganda" any reports that oppose your argument, while accepting as truth any claim that supports it, is simple intellectual dishonesty.

1 0

U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- On 16 Dec 2003 at 2:36, Anonymous wrote: > I saw several people commenting the issue of Geneva > convention on CNN during the day. Also I saw an expert on > this field from another country commenting on the issue > stating that it was a clear violation of the convention. In > either of these interviews were there any discussion on > whether it didn't apply to this specific case due to what > clothings he happened to wear or whattever. I got the > impression that it was clear that the U.S. treatment wasn't > fully appropriate. If you were watching the BBC, you would have thought most of the Iraqi population were outraged by his capture. I think you are suffering from New York Times syndrome "If even the New York Times admits that the kulaks are happy and prosperous under Stalin, that shows you how great the Soviet Union really must be when you discount all that capitalist propaganda." --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG Lh9C/c3J2U0bybWlK/P0f5hnnZT1z+2QEe1K9Ev2 4cVVWOLkCVsvYQG/u75vRB5xVrL2GjBeaEl+j6x07

6 6

Re: Sunny Guantanamo (Re: Speaking of the Geneva convention)
by Michael Kalus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:43 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: > >> According to the US Government though they are not soldiers. They are >> "unlawful enemy combattants". > > I can only interpret this as your saying that the US Government's > judgement in this issue is correct, and they are not POWs. > I only tell you what they are telling us. I do not agree with this assessment personally. >> >> The war in Afghanistan is over. This is were they were caught. Thus >> they >> should be released, no? > > Oh, we are back to their being POWs. Fine. In that case, the answer > to > your question is no. > > The war in question was begun by an attack on the United States, by the > murder of 3000 people in New York City. Is this war over? Not > according > to tapes attributed to al Qaeda. They still profess to be at war with > the United States. > Where the war begun is probably debatable. The US had (and has) their fingerprints over a lot of things that are happening. And all of these you could construe as an act of war. > Is the war in Afghanistan over? Not according to news reports. Osama > bin > Laden remains free. The Taliban remain active. But the regime has been replaced, thus the war is over, no? That was the case in Europe. Germany was defeated, a new government installed (with a lot of people from the old one) and you called it "done deal". Same in Japan. So what's different this time? > >> If they are terrorists and they have proof of >> this they should put them in front of a court (and I guess that should >> be a civil court, not a military tribunal as I don't quite see since >> when the US Army is performing law enforcement duties). > > Please make your mind up. Now they are terrorists again. > I am answering to your statements. We have already established that if they are POWs then they should be released because the war is over (see above). If they are not POWs but held because of terrorist charges, than they should be tried no? > Whose law requires that terrorists be treated in this fashion? > Our "enlightened" western society, led by the USofA who proclaims to know what right and wrong is (and who wants to teach it to all those "primitive" cultures in the middle east). > The US Army's responsibility is not to enforce the law. It is to > defend > the United States. They seem to be doing a good job at the moment. > Sure sure, nobody has flown another plane in a building. Is this because of the US Army and all those nifty security screenings at the airport (just last weekend I flew out of Dallas and saw more than enough ways to get something through security), or because nobody really wanted to do it right now? Guess we'll never know. But of course the Spinmeisters are going to say it's because of the war in Iraq and added security. I wonder who or what they are going to blame the next time someone gets blown up. > In the United States it is the responsibility of the police to enforce > the > law in their jurisdiction. There is no US police force with > responsiblities in Guantanamo. US law does not apply to Cuba. Nifty, isn't it? "Well people, we see your point. But you have to Understanding, even though we control Guantanamo Bay and even though Diego Garcia is a British Island which we just annexed, we can't really do anything to help those poor people. But don't fret, if they would be in an Afghani jail they would be off worse. Remember, we are the good guys, we only do what's in humanities best interrest." If they would be held in New York State they would have more rights. So let's just not even try that, we might actually HAVE to treat them according to the gospel that we preach. >> But they are not POWs by their own account. If they could be charged >> with any of these crimes above, then what takes two years to actually >> convict them? > > By your way of thinking, if I am taken prisoner in a war, I can decide > that I am not a POW and walk free. That's not what I said. What I DID say was that if they are not POWs and are not charged with a crime, they should be set free. > > In what war has this been common practice? See above. >> Some of them ARE US Citizens. Others are citizens of other states. >> International Law means that if I (holding a German passport) have to >> be >> allowed to contact MY government in order to receive any aid that I >> might require. This right has not been given. > > What "International Law" says that unlawful combatants get to contact > their governments in this manner? > The term "unlawful combatants" doesn't exist either. So the question is mute. Let's say "Human being" instead. > What if the government contacted, say Afghan or Pakistani, would prefer > that they not be contacted as you desire, or prefers that you be held > as > a prisoner indefinitely? Than you have a problem with your government. But neither British, nor Canadian nor French authorities were notified / could be contact OR, after they found out, were allowed to talk to their people. > >> Granted, I would not be protected under the rights of the US >> constitution, but I do have other rights and those are clearly >> violated >> as well. > > What's so clear about this? Do you actually have any knowledge at all > of customs and practices in countries in the region? Do you care at > all > about the opinions of local people, about their customary practices? I > think not. It is not only about people from Afghanistan, it is also about other countries, see my text above. >> >> Treason would need to be proofen. Considering that no charges have >> been >> brought forward after almost two years it is pretty clear (or at least >> appears to be) that there is no proof that any of these people did >> anything wrong. > > Do you know for a fact that there are US citizens held at Guantanamo? > If > so, who are they? > There have been several reports. What about John Walker? Whatever happened to him? >>> >> It doesn't. But if that would be the case than the captured Afghans >> should be returned to the Afghan authorities, why is this not >> happening? > > Perhaps the Afghan authorities don't want them back. > > Hello? > Perhaps you just look for the easy way out? Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DwTmlCnxcrW2uuEQL6iwCeOK5U56u8xVB9aT1SAqj+yi7OULcAoOd0 bml/UV9L7YtJFFoAq77OCilk =aXZZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: U.S. in violation of Geneva convention?
by Michael Kalus 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 17-Dec-03, at 5:23 PM, Jim Dixon wrote: >>> Damn lucky, to be honest. >>> >> No I did not omit this little bit. This is not the question. > > Oh but it is. > Ah? Why? >> Guilt or not guilt is not (supposely) decided when captured but in a >> court of law. You remember, "Justice" the thing the US supposely is >> standing for? > > Are you saying that the United States has to be a light to the world, > that > it has an extraordinary responsibility to be morally correct, that its > actions should be judged by a different standard from those of other > countries? The US makes these claims on their own. If they are the "good guys" than they should act like it. Not only when it is convenient but also when it is not. Morale is not about the "best bang for the buck" but about integrity. The US Government clearly does not possess a lot of integrity when it comes to morale. > What are you, some kind of pro-American fanatic? Last time I checked I was a human being. > >> Whatever he did before, it does not matter at this point. At this very >> moment the people who have to abide are the victors and that means the >> US Government (and thus the US Military). >> >> Two wrongs still don't make a right. > > What exactly is wrong with inspecting a prisoner's teeth and giving him > a haircut? Televising this for propaganda purposes. > > Why exactly do you say that mass murder, invasion, genocide somehow > are outweighed in the scales of justice by a medical examination? > No, what I am saying is that no matter what he did, the US still has to play by international rules (or should at least). Using those images from Saddam as Propaganda clearly is wrong. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+DxBGlCnxcrW2uuEQJqKQCgujw7xjSVAPdzXDcEW9abBkRyaF8AoNOL H+VuSTqSPFSTA834qQS2X36C =ULJm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0