December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

NYT (online only?) article on DigiCash Chapt. 11
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

...Wherein I get quoted in the NYT, for the first time in my life, using "bummed out". Oh, well. At least they spelled my name right... :-). Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: rah(a)pop.sneaker.net Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:35:32 -0500 To: Digital Bearer Settlement List <dbs(a)philodox.com> From: Robert Hettinga <rah(a)shipwright.com> Subject: Electronic Cash for the Net Fails to Catch On Sender: <dbs(a)philodox.com> Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: <mailto:requests@philodox.com?subject=subscribe%20dbs> X-Web-Archive: http://www.philodox.com/dbs-archive/ --- begin forwarded text Date: Mon, 30 Nov 1998 20:28:03 -0500 From: "Robert A. Hettinga" <rah(a)philodox.com> Reply-To: rah(a)philodox.com MIME-Version: 1.0 To: rah(a)shipwright.com Subject: Electronic Cash for the Net Fails to Catch On http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/11/cyber/articles/28cash.html <fair use snippage> November 28, 1998 Electronic Cash for the Net Fails to Catch On By PETER WAYNER here are two conflicting epigrams that rule the computer industry. The first is that the pioneer gets all of the gold, and the second is that the pioneer gets all of the arrows in the back. Several recent high-profile failures in the electronic payment industry suggest that efforts to develop versions of electronic cash for the Internet are so far reaping more arrows than riches. Christine M. Thompson The most recent signal came as <http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/11/cyber/articles/#1>Digicash, a closely watched electronic payment company based in Palo Alto, Calif., filed for bankruptcy protection. The company was known for a collection of tools that made it possible for people to spend small amounts of money over the Internet using what is known as a digital wallet, software that handles transactions in a manner similar to cash. One advantage of the Digicash system is that, unlike credit cards, it allowed consumers to make purchases anonymously. While several major banks expressed interest in the Digicash system and a few actually began offering accounts, the company was unable to generate enough mass interest among merchants or consumers. Consumers were reluctant to use Digicash because there weren't many merchants who accepted it, and merchants didn't sign up to participate because consumers weren't demanding it as a payment option. Other companies that have tried to develop digital cash systems haven't fared much better. Last August, another pioneer, First Virtual, shut down its system for processing electronic cash transactions and began to focus on a new business, interactive messaging, according to a company spokeswoman, Cindy Alvarez. Another company, CyberCash, still offers a system called CyberCoin, but most of the company's revenue comes from processing credit card transactions. Industry observers suggest that one reason electronic payment systems haven't taken off is that consumers have become more comfortable using credit cards to make purchases online. Bill Curry, a spokesman for Amazon.com, said credit cards are used for "the overwhelming majority" of transactions on the company's site. "I think the reason is that we do have an encrypted secure server, and we guarantee the transaction. If there are unauthorized charges on your account as a result of shopping at Amazon.com, we'll pay the $50 that's not covered by your credit-card issuers." Bill Trevor, director of customer service at CDNow, said most of CDNow's customers enter their credit-card numbers on the site. "Our experience is showing that in the month of October, roughly four fifths of our customers felt secure enough to put their credit card in our online form. Almost all of the rest are checks or money order. There are a couple of percentage points for people who call us, fax us or e-mail their credit-card number, but it's less than 3 percent." Companies that process credit card transactions have found more success than the wallet-based businesses. CDNow allows customers to send a separate e-mail message with the credit card number encrypted with PGP, a significantly higher-grade of encryption than is normally used to protect most browser-based transactions. Companies that process credit card transactions for e-commerce Web sites have found more success than the wallet-based businesses, like Digicash. Keith Miller is an executive vice president of Ibill, a company that processes credit card transactions for Web merchants. "We looked into that whole thing when we started a couple of years ago," he said, referring to companies that were building separate software packages for processing payments. "Back then, our biggest competitors were the wallet companies. We went after the market saying, why do we need to reinvent something when we have something that works and is simple, easy and quick?" In the end, Ibill chose to make it simple for people to buy something online by typing a credit card number into a browser. The browser uses a security method known as SSL (Secure Socket Layers) to protect the data. This doesn't offer the same protection as the carefully designed wallets, but has so far been acceptable to consumers. This approach has become so popular that one of the wallet pioneers, Cybercash, has developed a similar system and now derives more profits from simple SSL-based credit card transactions than through the wallets the company continues to develop. What remains to be seen is whether digital cash systems will ever find a market. Paul Kocher, an expert on cryptography who has analyzed many digital payment mechanisms, said it would take the support of a major player for an electronic cash system to be successful. "If someone like Visa or IBM threw their weight behind a system and got a lot of backers, it might take off. I don't see how a small company like Digicash could ever get a system deployed and working." Digicash's plans for the future are uncertain, in part because the company must pay off past debts by holding what amounts to an auction of its technology. But the fact that some companies are interested in Digicash's patents indicates that there may still be hope for some sort of electronic payment system. In particular, industry observers say that these systems' ability to allow consumers to make purchases online anonymously may yet prove valuable. <more fair use snippage...> Related Articles <http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/11/biztech/articles/04card.html>Got a Dime? Citibank and Chase End Test of Electronic Cash (November 11, 1998) <http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/98/06/biztech/articles/22card.1.jpg>Code Br eaker Cracks Smart Cards' Digital Safe (June 22, 1998) Scott Loftesness, the interim chief executive of Digicash, said the company is exploring many different options and has already received one offer for some of its patents. One of the patents provides an easy way for someone to sign or authorize a document without reading it, a process that is often called a "blind signature." This is the foundation for the anonymity Digicash offers its customers and may also have a variety of other untapped applications. Robert Hettinga, a digital cash consultant and one of the organizers of the Financial Cryptography conference held annually in Anguilla, said, "I would like to try to get a syndicate together to buy the [blind signature] patent. We would hold it and license it in a way that everyone could use it. I would be really bummed out if they took that patent and locked it away for another eight years." Others are more cynical about the possibility that any micropayment model will ever become dominant. William Powar, a former Visa executive who is now a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, said one problem with digital wallet systems is that they are designed for small one-time purchases. "There's no market where pay per use is significant," he said. "Look at the cable model." Powar points out that while newspapers, magazines and cable operators offer one-time consumption options through newsstands or special cable subscriptions, the bulk of their revenue comes from subscriptions and advertising. This suggests to him that micropayment systems won't be a crucial part of the future of the Internet, which would diminish the need for digital cash systems. In the near future, the electronic digital transaction industry is focusing on another goal: processing bills for utilities, credit card companies, telephone companies and others who normally bill customers via postal mail. Several new ventures, like Ibill, as well as established companies like Netscape Communications Corp., are working on technologies to allow consumers to pay their bills online. Netscape's system, called BillerXpert, will let consumers pay bills over the Web using, among other options, the payment mechanism designed by CyberCash. The bill presentment industry hopes to save money on postage while also providing additional services, like personalized content. Related Sites These sites are not part of The New York Times on the Web, and The Times has no control over their content or availability. <http://www.digicash.com>Digicash <http://www.cybercash.com>CyberCash <http://www.amazon.com>Amazon.com <http://www.cdnow.com>CDNow <http://www.ibill.com>Ibill <http://www.netscape.com>Netscape Communications Corp. Peter Wayner at <mailto:pwayner@nytimes.com>pwayner(a)nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions. <final bit of fair use snippage> --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subject: naughty bits At 12:25 AM 12/1/98 +0100, Anonymous wrote: >NSA probably maintains surveillance of all or nearly all >encrypted remailers. They log and archive the content of Well shit yes, I pay enough taxes, you bet they do, or I'm not getting my fucking dollars worth. I only send via anon when I care only about the honest readers' opinion. Like I'd send dangerous shit over the IP. May as well fax it plaintext to the Ukraine. Bwah hah hah. If you were really going to pull a prank, you'd create a one-shot yahoo/hotmail/etc account from a cafe then wipe that platter clean (both FAT and lean). ---If your Correlators have pegged me, well, hello. Nice game.

1 0

SternFUD on RSA
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

:) David Sternlight <david(a)sternlight.com> opines: > I am not on the Cypherpunks list. Given the tone of some posters I > don't' see that as a useful list. I wonder who won the pool on how long you would last before departing in a tiff. :) But I digress. > You already made this argument. It could have been (and perhaps was) > made in court. Despite that the patent was upheld. That is "I am > right and the court is wrong." I think that regulations which permit applied math to be patented are counterproductive, as do many other countries. Given that such regulations are in place in the United States, one would expect them to be upheld by the courts. Whether any of this is "wrong" in some abstract sense is a religious debate, in which I am uninterested. Let us examine the two statements: I. Certainly, given what was known at the time widespread data communications created a commercial demand for secure communication over insecure lines, a person setting out to create a software solution to the problem, knowing what was then known about cryptography, trapdoor functions, and other techniques, would almost certainly have employed modular exponentiation or discrete logs to solve the problem. If RSA hadn't been patented at the time it was, it most certainly would have been independently discovered by multiple individuals and widely employed, without the present licensing restrictions. Prior published works on cryptographic trapdoor functions involving the factoring of composites and possibly even encryption by modular exponentiation existed long before the RSA patent. II. Obvious prior art sufficient [in the current regulatory environment surrounding patents in the US] to invalidate the RSA patent in court has never been published. Now, given that these two statements are not opposites of each other, one is not going to refute the first by stating the second, no matter how big a bullhorn one employs. >> There is a huge difference between "prior art" and "invalidating prior >> art" under patent law. Indeed, to invalidate the patent, it would >> have been necessary not only to find a description of the mathematical >> methods used in the construction of the RSA algorithm, but also a >> claim for the specific use for secure communication over insecure data >> links. > It seems to me you are agreeing with my comment here. I have only argued that obvious prior art exists. I have also stated that I would favor a regulatory climate in which such obvious prior art would preclude a patent being granted. I have never stated that we currently live in such a regulatory climate. In fact, we do not. > Pretty far-fetched response. They tried to overturn the patent on > grounds of prior art. They failed. End of story. Many words, like "prior art," have specific legal meanings which differ from their common English usage. Kind of like economists arguing that there is no "demand" for food by poor people, because they have no money with which to purchase it. I use the term "obvious prior art" to mean prior publication of the essential methods and techniques with which a technically skilled person, given the same problem to solve, would arrive at the same or a similar solution. Put two graduate students at opposite ends of a wire, with the world's prior-to-1977 writings on cryptography, trapdoor functions, the intractablity of factoring the product of primes, and the modular exponentiation problem. I suspect the RSA Public Key Cryptosystem would not be long in emerging, even if one employed particularly dense graduate students. That is what I mean when I use the term "obvious prior art." > Again, it seems you've conceded my point here. What part of "nobody" > don't you understand? I was proceeding upon the assumption that the enumerated "points" you claimed I was making were ones with which you disagreed. If that is not the case, I am prepared to declare early victory. "Nobody could afford to litigate [against RSADSI]" is misleading, as even the wealthy don't employ the expensive option, when a cheap one is available. Besides, I have never contested that the current regulatory climate supports the patenting of things like RSA even in the presence of prior publication of the essential mathematical elements. >>> 6. Anyone can patent anything and nobody could afford to oppose them >>> (N.B. Presumably not IBM, not DEC, not DuPont, ..oh well, you get the >>> idea) >> Yes, David. Practically anything can be patented. The power of >> patents is in defending them, not in applying for them, or in >> receiving them. > Again you concede my point by ignoring the operative clause. What > part of "nobody" don't you understand? There were plenty of companies who had the financial power to squash RSADSI like a grape, and probably change the regulatory climate as well. There was no incentive for them to do so, and they probably have applied mathematical patents of their own which they are fond of. Had RSADSI sat on the patent, and refused to license it to others, both they and their patent would probably have had a very short life span. >>> 7. Rich, smart companies with big legal departments license bogus >>> patents rather than litigating. >> Well, that depends on how you define bogus. I consider patenting >> applied math to be bogus. Your mileage may vary. > RSA didn't patent applied math. They patented processes which may > use, or be described in part with applied math. Yes, the "method and apparatus" transformation. > The facts are that rich, smart companies litigate patents all the > time so your contention is false on its face. They rarely litigate patents where the cost to litigate is enormous, the technology may be cheaply licensed, and the chances of success, or of even trying to explain the topic to the average layman, are minimal. >> Someone who responds to a one line comment about the mathematical >> underpinnings of RSA being previously known, with several multipage >> essays whose central thesis is that such a claim cannot possible be >> true, because the patent would have been invalidated by the courts, is >> a troll who either understands nothing about how patents work, or is >> blowing a foghorn on behalf of the patent holder. > Another guilty plea. Well, I suppose Vin could just be a bored essayist in need of something to practice on. (Snicker) >>> 9. If someone takes the time to oppose me, someone must be funding him. >> Vin has already outed himself as someone who has done work for >> RSADSI. He has vociferously defended various key recovery schemes >> implemented in their products against critics. This, combined with >> his rabid insistance that the RSA patent is something novel and >> unique, does equate to what some of us might describe as a "vested >> interest" in the matter, directly funded or not. > Another failed refutation. Your words were unequivocal. I think you are having some difficulty separating out the sarcasm here. Besides, the suggestion that Vin has a vested interest in defending the RSA patent hardly translates into an assertion that everyone who disagrees with me on some subject is someone's paid agent. Abstraction from the specific to the general is not an accepted tool of inference. You, for instance, are probably quibbling for entirely different reasons. > I think the problem with most of your post is that you have taken the > odd exception or the odd passing issue and tried to make them out to > be the general case; in short your post was highly overblown as well > as redolent of personal attack. Had you discussed the issue more > temperately in terms of your factual claims it might have been more > useful. That sometimes happens when one party "summarizes" a flame war, and posts it elsewhere. Deal. >>> 10. The patent office never refuses patents on "method and apparatus" >>> except in the case of perpetual motion machines. >> Patent examiners generally rely only upon the material presented with >> the patent application when reviewing it, and expect people to do >> their own searches, and correctly cite related patents. Litigation is >> generally the means by which patents are challenged, not by the patent >> office refusing them, except in extrordinary circumstances, perpetual >> motion machines being one well-known example. > See above. You were unequivocal. "Practically anything" is not unequivocal, and is a correct description of the current patent review climate. > There may be cases of the sort you refer to, but it is not a general > argument which can then be applied to the case of the RSA patent. You > have repeatedly make the logical error of claiming that a specific > proved a general, and then applying the claimed general to a different > specific. Vin alleged that RSA being granted a patent proffered compelling evidence of the unique worth of the thing being patented. It is correct to apply general comments about the patent-granting climate to this specific case. For a better example of confusing generals and specifics, you may re-read your own comments on "if someone opposes me, someone must be funding them" above, incorrectly abstracting my comments about Vin to the general population. :) >>> 11. Security Dynamics is paying for those who oppose me. >> I merely asked if Vin intended to bill them for the time he spent >> writing his rants. A rhetorical question. > GIven the rest of your post, the inference was direct. If you did not > intend to imply that, you should not have used that languaging. Bzzzzzzzz. Wrong Answer. And we will have to deduct additional points for abstracting again from Vin to the general population vis a vis "Security Dynamics is paying for those who opppose me." The best you can get on this mid-term is now a C. :) >>> 12. Such opposition is "a tirade". >> Suggesting that I would have to retire my nym after criticizing the >> RSA patent and taking several pages to say a paragraph of material >> certainly qualifies as a tirade in my book, especially when combined >> with a lot of irrelevent innuendo unrelated to the topic being >> discussed. > Since most of his post was factual, it was not a tirade. Most of the factual material refuted nothing I was claiming, and refuted things I wasn't claiming, such as Jevon's book containing a complete description of PKC, as opposed to being the earliest known work which contained something related to the topic. Again, an attempt to impress people with the volume of the evidence, rather than with its quality, which when combined with the occasional snide remark, meets my definition of "tirade." > You are trying to discredit the bulk of his post with a > characterization of a small portion that doesn't apply to the whole, > and may not even apply to the portion. His post is discredited because it fails to address any of my points about the RSA patent, and instead argues forcibly for a collection of self-evident surrogate issues, carefully selected for their ability to be easily confused with the real ones. >>> 13. No corporations are buying products with GAK, key recovery, etc. >>> (N.B. in That is what "no corporate demand" means). >> To an economist, perhaps. It would be more accurate to say that >> demand as a function of whether such features are included is a >> pretty flat function. > You didn't say that. You said "no corporate demand". I understand the > word "no" because English is my mother tongue. "Demand" in common English usage means that something is being clamored for. In Economic terms, it means half of the phrase "supply and demand" which is something entirely different, said economic demand existing for anything which is purchased. > that the demand curve has a particular (flat) shape, did you make that > up or did you rely on empirical evidence? I believe that surveys by privacy groups long ago showed that GAK/Key Escrow/Key Recovery was not being clamored for by corporate America, although attempts were being made to incentivize it by the intelligence and law enforcement communities. > Your statement that "demand as a function of" X is a pretty flat > function is also nonsense economics. Perhaps you meant to say that the > _quantity demanded_ is invariant over whether these features are > included or not. I was using "demand" in its ordinary English usage. You were using it as an economic term, in an attempt to call the mere fact that GAK/Key Escrow/Key Recovery-enabled software was purchased at all "demand" for it. Which, to use one of Clinton's favorite phrases, was "technically accurate, although misleading." :) > Or perhaps you meant to say that the demand curve as a function of X > was 'one-to-one onto' itself. Uh, no. That was definitely not what I was saying. I don't think it is what you are trying to say either, but thanks for using "1-1" and "onto" in a sentence about functions. > To test your hypothesis, you'd have to show that if two versions were > offered simultaneously, one with and one without X, no corporate buyer > would prefer the version with X. That would kind of depend on how "X" was priced, would it not? If you give things away for free, people will probably take one in case they need it someday, as it costs them nothing. This does not equate to "demand," or "clamoring." > I leave the reason that would the the dispositive experiment as an > exercise. Hint: It's utility economics. Hint: It's not quite English. >>> 14. Someone who opposes stronger escrow/GAK/key recovery than RSA is >>> offering must be suspect. >> Your point here eludes me. > You said that he opposed escrow/GAK/key recovery except up to the > point offered by RSA. That translates as he opposes such things if > they were stronger than those offered by RSA. Nothing suspect about > that--he simply agrees with the decision point RSA chose as to how > strong to make such things. That's one possible explanation. To test your hypothesis, we should see how well Vin's agreement tracks RSA's inclusion of additional encrow/GAK/recovery features in the future. He may have to change the name of "The Privacy Guild" to something less impressive. >>> I could go on ... >> And you usually do, and on, and on, and on... > And now you're diverging from the facts and logic of the matter to > personal attack. It reveals the same flaw that invalidated your > original post. I'm sure you've been attacked before, by people a lot less nice than myself. :) >> I simply believe that patents on applied math are inappropriate. >> Given that they are allowed, it seems silly to cite the fact that the >> courts uphold them as evidence for anything, particularly claims that >> they are new, novel, and non-obvious. > Had you said that we could have had a rational discussion. Points in > the discussion would have included: > 1. Even patent law agrees with you; the RSA patent is a process > patent and not a patent on applied math. Hmmm. Well, patents on pure math are not allowed, ergo, math must be suitably transformed in order to be patented. > 2. Patents purely on applied math, are, as far as anyone here knows > not allowed. You may exponentiate to your heart's content as long as > you don't practice the RSA algorithm as part of a crypto system. There is a fundamental difference between telling me I cannot practice modular exponentiation to communicate with people without licensing it, and telling me I cannot make RDRAMs without licensing that. I am unlikely to replicate the RDRAM design by accident. I am quite likely to derive a given bit of mathematics given the application for it. If RSA can be patented, why not something like Householder transforms, or cluster analysis, or the quadratic formula? Sounds like the slippery slope to me. > 3. The court didn't uphold a patent on applied math; it upheld a > process patent on a crypto system that, among other things, uses > applied math. So does almost any engineering design. There is a fundamental difference between a physical machine whose design required the use of mathematics, and an abstract mathematical transformation, which may exist only in an instance of some computer program performing a certain task. > 4. The particular process patent was found to be new, novel, and > non-obvious. There was ample opportunity for Cylink to try to refute > that. They failed. End of story. Again, returning to the top of our discussion, the existence of "obvious prior art" for RSA in the common English sense meaning of "obvious prior art" has little to do with whether patents are upheld in the current regulatory climate in the United States. It would be simple to test your hypothesis, by simply giving trapdoor functions replete with useful identities to two people, and telling they have to construct a common secret unknown to a third party monitoring their communication. I cannot imagine a technically skilled person taking very long to make the transition from some "one-way" functions, to a practical implementation of D-H, RSA, or whatever. That would be my definition of "obvious." > Now we've discussed all the above substance before, and my purpose in > reciting the four points isn't to re-open the topic, but to show that > your definition of what the topic is is simply incorrect. My posts. My topic. Your posts. Your topic. Works for me. :) > Given that, I don't propose to discuss the above four points yet > again. They aren't there to reopen the discussion, but to show that > your statement of the issue is inaccurate. My statement is point "I" at the beginning of this message. Please re-read it and tell me whether or not you agree with it. -- Sponsor the DES Analytic Crack Project http://www.cyberspace.org/~enoch/crakfaq.html

2 1

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Perhaps of interest to locals... EE380 Computer Systems Colloquium Fall Quarter 1998-1999 Lecture #10 Date: Wednesday, Dec 2, 1998 Time: 4:15-5:30 pm Location: NEC Auditorium (B03) Gates Computer Science Building Internet: Live on the Net! See instructions on the Web page http://www-leland.stanford.edu/class/ee380 ********************************************************************** Title: Cracking the Data Encryption Standard: Technology, Design, and Politics Speaker: John Gilmore The Electronic Frontier Foundation About the talk: Sometimes it takes good engineering to straighten out twisted politics. In 1997, working in conjunction with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, John Gilmore decided to demonstrate this by building a custom computer that would be able to solve the Data Encryption Standard, an encoding scheme the United States Government had been promoting for "secure" business and financial communications since the 1970s. It had long been suspected the Government was pressing citizens to use this standard because its intelligence agencies were secretly able to decode DES-encrypted messages. It appears this theory was right. DES *was* crackable -- easily and affordably -- which Mr. Gilmore demonstrated in July, 1998 by using his "DES Cracker" system to solve in less than three days a coded message that had been produced as part of a DES-decryption contest. In this presentation Mr. Gilmore will discuss the design of the DES Cracker system and explain some of the politics surrounding the DES controversy. Note: A full description of the DES Cracker system, including complete hardware and software design details, appears in the book, "Cracking DES: Secrets of Encryption Research, Wiretap Politics, & Chip Design," published by O'Reilly. Further details can also be found at: http://www.eff.org/descracker/ About the speaker: John Gilmore is an entrepreneur and civil libertarian. He was an early employee of Sun Microsystems, and co-founded Cygnus Solutions, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Cypherpunks, and the Internet's "alt" newsgroups. He has twenty-five years of experience in the computer industry, including programming, hardware and software design, management, and investment, and is a significant contributor to the worldwide open source (free software) development effort. Mr. Gilmore's advocacy efforts on encryption policy aim to improve public understanding of this fundamental technology for privacy and accountability in open societies. He led the team that built, in conjunction with the EFF, the world's first published DES Cracker. He is a board member of the Internet Society and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Further background information may be found at: http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/ Contact information: John Gilmore gnu(a)toad.com

1 0

RE: "Export" controls
by Trei, Peter 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Anonymous" wrote: > >Can you give me an example of a commercial vendor who has suffered > >because someone bought a "dangerous" product ( Windows, for example ) at > >retail and carried it out of the country in a suitcase? My guess would > > I cannot give such example because hard crypto products are not available > to > the general public. > > I am unaware that microshit OS has hard crypto built-in. The only hard > crypto > package I have ever seen for sale at mail-order (and thus not anonymous) > is > NAI's PGP (and I have never seen any hard crypto available in a store for > cash > - but that can only mean that there is no perceived demand). > [Trei, Peter] Huh? I got my copy of NAI PGP 5.0 off of the shelf at CompUSA, a major retail chain (I did pay with plastic, but am 99.999...% certain that cash would have been accepted). The box *is* marked 'Not for export', but I don't recall seeing any other restrictions. Either 'anonymous' hasn't looked hard enough, or he/she/it's in another country. Peter Trei ptrei(a)securitydynamics.com [I apologize for the lousy formatting. I'm using a Microsoft product to sent this message.]

1 0

Sternlight on Cypherpunks
by Eric Cordian 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Sternlight has denied us! David Sternlight <david(a)sternlight.com> writes: > I am not on the Cypherpunks list. Given the tone of some posters I > don't' see that as a useful list. > I never participated in that list. It was suggested to me by a very > senior member of the list that all the wrangling typical of that list > meant it wasn't worth the time, and I took his advice. I never had sex with that woman. -Bill Clinton I never participated in that list. -David Sternlight Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't David join the list some time ago, and depart with a giant PLONK when someone called him a "statist"? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"

1 0

somebody clue this person in please!
by HyperReal-Anon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ken Williams <jkwilli2(a)unity.ncsu.edu> wrote: >i'm laughing too damned hard to do it myself. >In a message dated 11/30/98 10:15:50 AM EST, jkwilli2(a)unity.ncsu.edu writes: > >> Get Your Private, Free, Encrypted Email at http://www.nsa.gov > >I looked around there site and couldnt find anything about geting a e-mail >could you please be more specific. Why do you find this such a surprise? This is typical behavior for AOLholes. We've all tried for years to clue such lamers in, and all we've ever gotten in return are more "solicited" spam, and more unsolicited spam, and it's worse because they're no longer concentrated at one site.

1 0

New Brady Bill Implications
by Carol Anne Cypherpunk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I'm watching Headline News, and they are reporting that "now", under new provisions in the Brady Bill, and 'instant' background check is being made. This even is for simple rifles and shotguns. Just think, soon there might be 'instant' background checks, even just to use simple 56 bit DES. Or somewhere lurking around in your browser code, a teeny tiny program that sends a cookie to the NSA, FBI, etc every time you use crypto. Who knows, it's probably there already. Or a realtime NCIS check to buy a copy of PGP! Wild! cab8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0 Comment: PGP 6.0 is the "The Living End". iQA/AwUBNmOomDiM2656VXArEQLQRQCgg3l0PO8DOzkj/7McAUI8gQSC03cAnRhk AybC39FkOKoV7ZQUvJcuFTT8 =9sxR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Member Internet Society - Certified Mining Co. Guide - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.165.50.96 http://www.primenet.com/~carolab http://www.ozones.com/~drozone - The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** Will lobby Congress for Food & Expenses!!!

6 8

Jim Bell Update
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forward No. 1 (11/30/98): Jim has been back in the Seattle/Tacoma jail for about a week & 1/2, after a stop-over in Oklahoma City. Not doing much, but is glad to be back because he likes the food better and he has things to do, unlike in Springfield. He doesn't know what the schedule is for his stay at this point, except that there is an attempt to impose more time to his sentence, which he says by the time they accomplish anything in court he will have fulfilled anyway. He requests once again that anyone who would like to help him research the names/addresses of people he thinks are involved in the surveillance efforts against him, to please contact him. His address again is: James Bell #26906086 Federal Detention Center P.O. Box 68976 Seattle WA 98168 ---------- Forward No. 2 (11/30/98): After spending several weeks in Oklahoma, then several more in Springfield, MO, a shrink interviewed Jim for a total of six hours, and said he could find nothing wrong that they could help with. After several more weeks in Springfield, it was back to Oklahoma, for a couple more weeks, and now he is finally back at Sea-Tac. He reports that the prosecutor is asking for 9 months for violation of parole, which would mean Jim might be released in 3 months. He is on Prozac and seems in pretty good spirits. Opinions seem unchanged. ----------

1 0

CJ Update
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forward (11/26/98): They moved CJ from Springfield on the 18th. He is in Oklahoma City awaiting movement supposedly next week. I talked with him and he sounded okay. He would like to receive copies of what has been written and posted about him. He doen't know where he is going. His lawyer should find out next week.

1 0