July 2018 - cypherpunks-legacy

[Politech] Lawsuit challenges law targeting Internet "annoyances" [fs]
by Declan McCullagh 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

The complaint: http://www.politechbot.com/docs/annoy.complaint.020906.pdf News coverage: http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6037439.html Previous Politech message: http://www.politechbot.com/2006/01/12/new-law-targets/ The prohibition in the new law: "Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." -Declan _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/) ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]

1 0

for your list on airport ID
by Sarah Lai Stirland 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Supreme Court Won't KO Airport ID Policy Article Tools Sponsored By By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: January 8, 2007 Filed at 10:42 a.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge to federal airport regulations requiring passengers to show identification before they board planes. The justices, without comment, let stand an appeals court ruling against Libertarian activist and millionaire John Gilmore. Gilmore wanted the court to force the federal government to disclose the policy that requires passengers to produce identification. Unless the regulations are made public, air travelers have no way to determine if the regulations call for impermissible searches, Gilmore said in court papers. The Justice Department has said that demanding ID protects passengers' safety. The case is Gilmore v. Gonzales, 06-211. ------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed as rah(a)shipwright.com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: Archives: http://archives.listbox.com/247/ Modify Your Subscription: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=3305309&user_secret=4f0ee8e8 Unsubscribe: http://v2.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?id=3305309-4f0ee8e8-dj6aeopy Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com --- end forwarded text -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.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

[IP] for your list on airport ID
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

Bush administration proposes retroactive immunity for phone
by eekid＠aol.com 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

companies http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070504-bush-administration- proposes-retroactive-immunity-for-phone-companies.html "Retroactive immunity from prosecution is a beautiful thing if you're a major telecommunications provider in the US, and phone companies are about to receive it if the Bush administration gets its way. The administration's new appropriations request for intelligence agencies was recently disclosed at a hearing of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and it includes a massive gift to the phone companies who have been (can we drop the "allegedly" at this point?) helping the NSA and other agencies." AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

[IP] Bush administration proposes retroactive immunity for phone companies
by David Farber 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Begin forwarded message:

1 0

Re: [serval-project-dev] Implementing a different routing protocol
by Jeremy Lakeman 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 12:47 AM, Fraser Cadger <cadge01(a)googlemail.com> wrote: > I had actually been meaning to send another message about Rhizome for some > time. I did some research into the code and I also came across a blog post > by yourself discussing your tests with Rhizome implemented over MDP; > http://servalpaul.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/rhizome-over-mdp.html . I find the > concept of the Rhizome journalling quite interesting, and I think it would > definitely be relevant for the sharing of on-demand (recorded files), > however I am not sure if it would work for the interactive video > calling/VoIP traffic, but I must admit I have not looked at Rhizome in much > detail so I could be wrong. Actually one question I have, leading on from > your blog post; is Rhizome intended to be implemented over MDP? If so, aside > from the journal concept of a file being a version which can be updated, and > the use of store and forward, is there much of a difference between Rhizome > routing and MDP routing? Rhizome doesn't route. It just floods, one hop at a time. Though now that we have a rhizome transport built on MDP it would be possible to transfer content directly over a number of hops. Just because we have a novel tool doesn't make it a good fit for every problem. Just because you have a good hammer, doesn't make every problem a nail. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Serval Project Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to serval-project-developers(a)googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to serval-project-developers+unsubscribe(a)googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/serval-project-developers?hl=en. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Secrecy News -- 07/23/12
by Steven Aftergood 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Format Note: If you cannot easily read the text below, or you prefer to receive Secrecy News in another format, please reply to this email to let us know. SECRECY NEWS from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy Volume 2012, Issue No. 73 July 23, 2012 Secrecy News Blog: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/ ** SECURITY-CLEARED POPULATION TOPS 4.8 MILLION ** NSA RELEASES DISPUTED EMAIL FROM DRAKE CASE ** SOME NUCLEAR WEAPONS-RELATED INFO TO BE DECLASSIFIED ** REPORTERS SEEK CLARIFICATION OF PENTAGON ANTI-LEAK POLICY ** CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE LAW, AND MORE FROM CRS SECURITY-CLEARED POPULATION TOPS 4.8 MILLION The number of people who held security clearances for access to classified information increased last year to a new reported high of more than 4.8 million persons as of October 1, 2011, a new intelligence community report to Congress said. http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/clear-2011.pdf Last year's annual report, the first official count of security cleared personnel, had indicated that there were over 4.2 million clearances in 2010. That number astonished observers because it surpassed previous estimates by more than a million. ("Number of Security Clearances Soars," Secrecy News, September 20, 2011). But it turns out that the 2010 number itself underreported the number of clearances, and the new report to Congress presents a revised 2010 figure of 4.7 million. Even so, the number of clearances rose in 2011 by about 3% to 4.86 million, the new report said. The total clearance figure is composed of cleared government employees and contractors, at all clearance levels -- Confidential, Secret and Top Secret. (The number of Top Secret clearances alone was over 1.4 million.) It includes all persons who have been cleared for access to classified information whether or not they have actually been granted such access. While the total reported figures are "likely to include some duplicate entries," the report explains, efforts have been made to eliminate them and only "a minimal number of duplicates" remain. The annual report on security clearances was required by Congress in the FY2010 Intelligence Authorization Act. It represents a new degree of transparency in national security classification policy. Until the first report was issued last year, only rough estimates of the size of the cleared population were available, and those estimates proved to be unreliable. The latest ten-page report includes numerous details that are ordinarily withheld from public disclosure, whether they are classified or not. For example, the new report indicates that 5.3% of the security clearance cases that CIA processed last year resulted in denial of clearance. At NSA, the number of denials reached 8.0%. Six of the seven intelligence community agencies that do their own clearance adjudications reported that they had cases that had been open for more than one year, the report said. The number of pending security clearance cases at CIA requiring more than one year to complete was 3,755 for government employees, and 732 for contractors. "The IC faces unique challenges in clearing individuals with unique or critical skills -- such as highly desirable language abilities -- who often have significant foreign associations that may take additional time to investigate and adjudicate," the report said. The new report was transmitted to Congress in early July, and was first mentioned in a July 12 report from the Government Accountability Office. The report itself was publicly released last week by ODNI in response to a request from Secrecy News. NSA RELEASES DISPUTED EMAIL FROM DRAKE CASE On Friday, the National Security Agency released a declassified email message entitled "What a Wonderful Success" that had been used as the basis for a felony count against former NSA official Thomas Drake in 2010, who was charged with unlawful retention of classified information, including that message. http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/07/nsa-wws.pdf Although all of the felony counts against Mr. Drake were eventually dismissed, the "What a Wonderful Success" email remains controversial because it has been challenged by a leading classified expert as an exemplar of reckless overclassification. The document is "an innocuous, internal communication that never should have been classified in the first place," according to a petition filed last May by J. William Leonard, the former director of the Information Security Oversight Office. He asked the presiding judge in the Drake case to lift the protective order which currently bars him from discussing the NSA document. The release of the NSA document was first reported in "Ex-federal official calls U.S. classification system 'dysfunctional'," by Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post, July 22. Without getting into the specifics of the newly disclosed document, Mr. Leonard said: "I can generally state that the very critical national security tool of classification of national security information is becoming dysfunctional and requires the highest level of attention if it is to continue to be an effective national security tool." "Specifically, the system clearly lacks the ability to differentiate between trivial information and that which can truly damage our nation's well-being. At the same time, and even more importantly, it appears to be incapable of holding government officials accountable for abusing the classification system." "If the system continues to be one-sided, where individuals are routinely held to account for supposedly improperly disclosing protected information but no one is ever held accountable for improperly classifying information in the first place, it sends a very clear message to the millions of individuals with security clearances to continue to overclassify with impunity. That does not bode well for either the security of our nation or our democratic form of government." "Absent meaningful corrective action by the Government at the highest of levels, to include the President, I despair for the integrity of the classification system," Mr. Leonard said. SOME NUCLEAR WEAPONS-RELATED INFO TO BE DECLASSIFIED Certain types of classified information pertaining to nuclear weapons are going to be downgraded or declassified, the Department of State indicated in a newly disclosed report. "Over the past fiscal year, the Department [of State] has been actively working with the Departments of Energy and of Defense to identify information that had previously been classified under the Atomic Energy Act or various national security executive orders," wrote Sheryl Walter, the director of State's Office of Information Programs and Services, in a February 10, 2012 letter to the Information Security Oversight Office. "Several categories of this information, including topics concerning nuclear weapons, weapons testing, improvised nuclear devices, and international cooperation relating to nuclear forensics, will be downgraded, classified for shorter durations, or declassified," Ms. Walter wrote. No schedule for declassification was mentioned. The letter was released last week under the Freedom of Information Act. http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/dos-fcgr.pdf REPORTERS SEEK CLARIFICATION OF PENTAGON ANTI-LEAK POLICY After the Department of Defense issued a statement last week saying that it would "monitor all major, national level reporting" for evidence of unauthorized disclosures of classified information, Pentagon reporters wrote to the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ask whether such monitoring extended to surveillance of the press. "We are asking you to clarify in writing what is meant by 'monitor all major, national level reporting'," wrote reporters Robert Burns (Associated Press), Kevin Baron (National Journal), Luis Martinez (ABC) and Barbara Starr (CNN) on behalf of the Pentagon Press Association. "The phrase 'monitor all major, national level reporting' could be interpreted by some as authorizing intrusive actions aimed at members of the news media who report on defense issues. We have received no answers as to specific monitoring authorities, and 'reporting' is much broader than 'published reports'," they wrote. In particular, they asked, what specific authorities does the Pentagon claim for monitoring the media? "Do you have authority to do the following: *tap phones at work or home? *intercept or monitor emails? *conduct monitoring or surveillance of Pentagon press workspaces?" "Are you authorized to monitor phone conversations, emails or press workspaces without our knowledge?" See the July 20 letter from the Pentagon Press Association here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2012/07/ppa072012.html The letter was first reported by Dylan Byers in Politico on July 20. As of last night, no reply from DoD had been forthcoming. CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE LAW, AND MORE FROM CRS New reports from the Congressional Research Service that have not been made otherwise available to the public include these. Climate Change and Existing Law: A Survey of Legal Issues Past, Present, and Future, July 2, 2012 (published July 19): http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42613.pdf A Brief Overview of Actions Taken by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in Its First Year, July 18, 2012: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42615.pdf Conflict Minerals in Central Africa: U.S. and International Responses, July 20, 2012: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42618.pdf _______________________________________________ Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists. The Secrecy News Blog is at: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/ To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, go to: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/subscribe.html To UNSUBSCRIBE, go to http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/unsubscribe.html OR email your request to saftergood(a)fas.org Secrecy News is archived at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/index.html Support the FAS Project on Government Secrecy with a donation: http://www.fas.org/member/donate_today.html _______________________ Steven Aftergood Project on Government Secrecy Federation of American Scientists web: www.fas.org/sgp/index.html email: saftergood(a)fas.org voice: (202) 454-4691 twitter: @saftergood ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0

Re: Proof of Work -> atmospheric carbon
by Zooko O'Whielacronx 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Jan 26, 2009, at 13:08 PM, John Levine wrote: > If only. People have been saying for at least a decade that all we > have to do to solve the spam problem is to charge a small fee for > every message sent. I was one of those people, a decade and a half ago, on the cypherpunks mailing list. In fact, as I recall I once discussed with John Gilmore after a Bay Area Cypherpunks Physical Meeting whether he would pay me to implement some sort of solution to spam, but we didn't agree on a strategy. > Unfortunately, there's a variety of reasons that's never going to > work. Hey, the future is long. (We hope.) > One of the larger reasons is that despite a lot of smart people > working on micropayments, we have nothing approaching a system that > will work for billions of tranactions per day, where 90% of the > purported payments are bogus, along with the lack of any interface to > the real world financial system that would scale and withstand the > predictable attacks. Coincidentally, I just blogged today about how we are much closer to this now than we were then, even though none of the smart people that you were probably thinking of are involved in the new deployments: http://testgrid.allmydata.org:3567/uri/URI:DIR2-RO:j74uhg25nwdpjpacl6rkat2y… WoW-gold, for example, appears to have at least millions of transactions a day. Does anyone have more detail about the scale and scope of these currencies? > My white paper could use a little updating, but the basic conclusions > remain sound: > > http://www.taugh.com/epostage.pdf Thanks! I'll read this. Regards, Zooko --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com

1 0

Re: Proof of Work -> atmospheric carbon
by Zooko O'Whielacronx 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

On Jan 26, 2009, at 13:08 PM, John Levine wrote: > If only. People have been saying for at least a decade that all we > have to do to solve the spam problem is to charge a small fee for > every message sent. I was one of those people, a decade and a half ago, on the cypherpunks mailing list. In fact, as I recall I once discussed with John Gilmore after a Bay Area Cypherpunks Physical Meeting whether he would pay me to implement some sort of solution to spam, but we didn't agree on a strategy. > Unfortunately, there's a variety of reasons that's never going to > work. Hey, the future is long. (We hope.) > One of the larger reasons is that despite a lot of smart people > working on micropayments, we have nothing approaching a system that > will work for billions of tranactions per day, where 90% of the > purported payments are bogus, along with the lack of any interface to > the real world financial system that would scale and withstand the > predictable attacks. Coincidentally, I just blogged today about how we are much closer to this now than we were then, even though none of the smart people that you were probably thinking of are involved in the new deployments: http://testgrid.allmydata.org:3567/uri/URI:DIR2-RO:j74uhg25nwdpjpacl6rkat2y… WoW-gold, for example, appears to have at least millions of transactions a day. Does anyone have more detail about the scale and scope of these currencies? > My white paper could use a little updating, but the basic conclusions > remain sound: > > http://www.taugh.com/epostage.pdf Thanks! I'll read this. Regards, Zooko --------------------------------------------------------------------- The Cryptography Mailing List Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo(a)metzdowd.com

1 0

Re: <nettime> Steve Coll: Leaks (The New Yorker)
by John Young 06 Jul '18

06 Jul '18

Like many supporters and detractors of Wikileaks Coll underestimates the intent of the initiative. The comparison to media is fatuous as though media, if not scholars, should be the dominant source of public information about governments and other authoritative institutions. Media and scholars are themselves authoritatives more like governments than different, enjoying privileges and protection all sides grant one another while condemning those outside their fold. None of the authoritatives are insurgencies and assuredly will find ways to "critique" whatever disturbs their perquisites and opportunities, using concepts and language meant to defuse and stigmatize threats. There is overmuch circularity in Coll's apolgia for media in which he presumes an enduring value in responsible media and scholarhip that has been squandered by timid rumination. This marks a failure to go beyond convention. One might suspect Wikileaks is laughing its ass off at the high-value conceit of supporters and detractors who are out to advance their own initiatives under guise of pondering the Wikileaks each has confected for that purpose -- and avoiding the high-risk of taking on a true threat to authoritatives. To be sure, Wikileaks as it has been might morph into a tamed beast like so many short-lived, opportunisticly aggressive insurgencies brought into submission with valorization, condemnation, attention, praise, notoriety, bribery, prizes and embrasure by mightily crafty and extremely well-endowed authoritatives who gobble up ambitious rebels like sweetmeats. Wikileaks would be smart to pull back from Ellsberg and those working diligently to manage it in the most favored direction, the prefabricated heroic, that is, all hat and no cattle. Another New Yorker article this week explores the self-affirming drive toward heroism. If not Assange's heroicly defiant Wikileaks peters out then many others more variable and durable, and that seems to be what's developing under the radar of all too delusional incisiveness. # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime(a)kein.org ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

1 0