- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Different Ways to Serial Murder AOL Members' Children
by Syniker＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Subj: Different Ways to Serial Murder AOL Members' Children Date: 97-09-12 01:00:46 EDT From: remailer(a)bureau42.ml.org (bureau42 Anonymous Remailer) Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)Algebra.COM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Different Ways to Serial Murder AOL Members' Children: 1. I already ate all of mine. How many you got that are edible???? 2. 3. 4. 5.

2 1

Re: The problem of playing politics with our constitutional rights
by Syniker＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Well -- I wasn't thinking of an encrypted 'channel' -- I mean, just put the damn crypto right on the page as a graphic -- it's a work of art, see -- it's a digital painting... and when it's on the WWW, it's auto public knowledge, and in the public domain... Anyways, I'm not waitin' -- I redid my homepage and have got the two RSA Perl lines on there... I'll hang it by the weekend... too damn tired tonight... Also -- if I can get PGP running this weekend, first two encrypted emails will be to GagMe Gallegly and Diane F... Wait.... fuckin' Gagme doesn't even have email..........OK -- FAX.... Larry.

1 0

Re: House panel votes behind closed doors to build in Big Brother
by Syniker＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We got ourselves one sicko government. I'll never comply or approve of any part of this. Larry.

1 0

House panel votes behind closed doors to build in Big Brother
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 23:37:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: House panel votes behind closed doors to build in Big Brother Software that protects your privacy is a controlled substance that may no longer be sold, a Congressional committee decided today. Meeting behind closed doors this morning, the House Intelligence committee voted to replace a generally pro-encryption bill with an entirely rewritten draft that builds in Big Brother into all future encryption products. (The Senate appears to be moving in a similar direction.) The new SAFE bill -- titled in a wonderfully Orwellian manner the "Security and Freedom through Encryption" act even though it provides neither -- includes these provisions: SELLING CRYPTO: Selling unapproved encryption products (that do not include "immediate access to plaintext") becomes a federal crime, immediately after this bill becomes law. Five years in jail plus fines. Distributing, importing, or manufacturing such products after January 31, 2000 is another crime. NETWORK PROVIDERS: Anyone offering scrambled "network service" including encrypted web servers or even "ssh" would be required to build in a backdoor for the government by January 31, 2000. This backdoor must provide for "immediate decryption or access to plaintext of the data." TECHNICAL STANDARDS: The Attorney General will publish technical requirements for such backdoors in network service and encryption products, within five months after the president signs this bill. LEGAL TO USE CRYPTO: "After January 31, 2000, it shall not be unlawful to use any encryption product purchased or in use prior to such date." GOVERNMENT POWERS: If prosecutors think you may be selling, importing, or distributing non-backdoor'd crypto or are "about" to do so, they can sue. "Upon the filing of the complaint seeking injunctive relief by the Attorney General, the court shall automatically issue a temporary restraining order against the party being sued." Also, there are provisions for holding secret hearings, and "public disclosure of the proceedings shall be treated as contempt of court." You can request an advisory opinion from the government to see if the program you're about to publish violates the law. ACCESS TO PLAINTEXT: Courts can issue orders, ex parte, granting police access to your encrypted data. But all the government has to do to get one is to provide "a factual basis establishing the relevance of the plaintext" to an investigation. They don't have to demonstrate probable cause, which is currently required for a search warrant. More interestingly, this explicitly gives the FISA court jurisdiction (yes, the secret court that has never denied a request for a wiretap). If they decode your messages, they'll tell you within 90 days. GOVERNMENT PURCHASING: Federal government computer purchases must use a key escrow "immediate decryption" backdoor after 1998. Same with networks "purchased directly with Federal funds to provide the security service of data confidentially." Such products can be labeled "authorized for sale to U.S. government" ENCRYPTION EXPORTS: The Defense & Commerce departments will control exports of crypto. Software "without regard to strength" can be exported if it includes a key escrow backdoor and is first submitted to the government. Export decisions aren't subject to judicial review, and the "president may by executive order waive any provision of this act" if he thinks it's a threat to national security. Within 15 days, he must send a classified briefing to Congress. ADVISORY PANEL: Creates the Encryption Industry and Information Security Board, with seven members from Justice, State, FBI, CIA, White House, and six from the industry. INTERNATIONAL: The president can negotiate international agreements and perhaps punish noncompliant governments. Can you say "trade sancation?" (Other provisions barring the use of crypto in a crime and some forms of cryptanalysis are also in the bill.) Next the Commerce Committee will vote on SAFE, and a former FBI agent-turned-Congressman is vowing to ensure that similar language to this is included. (The committees are voting on the bill in parallel, and a four-person team of Congressmen is working to forge a compromise before Commerce votes.) Then the heads of the five committees that have rewritten the legislation will sit down and work out another compromise. If it's acceptable to the House Rules committee -- and if the FBI/NSA get what they want it will be -- the bill can move to the floor for a vote. That's why the encryption outlook in Congress is abysmal. Crypto-advocates have lost, and lost miserably. A month ago, the debate was about export controls. Now the battle is over how strict the //domestic// controls will be. It's sad, really, that so many millions of lobbyist-dollars were not only wasted, but used to advance legislation that has been morphed into a truly awful proposal. I wrote more about this at: http://cgi.pathfinder.com/netly/opinion/0,1042,1385,00.html -Declan

4 3

Re: The problem of playing politics with our constitutional rights
by Seth Finkelstein 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: David H Dennis <david(a)amazing.com> > I must confess that I'm wondering what Seth Finkelstein, Pro-Government Warrior, I resent this part of the description, but let it pass. > able to jump over 50 Libertarians in a single bound, able to out-flame 5 or so Libertarians in a single thread is more accurate. > thinks of all this. Crypto restrictions are natural to oppose in a > Libertarian world, due to our fundamental distrust of government. > Where do they fit in a Liberal one? I'm *solidly* against such restrictions. Hey, if *Lizard* recommends me here, you've got to believe it :-). Here's a quick political lesson: Being a Liberal in the US means very roughly ONLY that one believes that the government has some role to play in moderating the excesses of the market. It does not particularly *make* you a civil-libertarian. However, because Liberals think about general social power and the abuse of it, they are very often led to the civil-libertarian view. In the opposite direction, sometimes they just want power themselves. It is with great regret that I must debunk the myth that being a Liberal makes you a saint (it only seems that way in comparison to everyone else around ... :-) ) It also helps that Liberals are *predominantly* drawn from ranks of those who are the targets of both public and private abuses. So they often both favor government action against business abuse, and strong civil-liberties guarantees to keep government power in check. It is *possible* to be a Conservative civil-libertarian, but this much lesser group, and has in the past decades very much been purged from the Republican party by the theocrats and hence from the national scene. The net result of this process: Not all Liberals are civil-libertarians, but civil-libertarian opposition will almost always come from Liberals (read this sentence several times until you understand it. I get so tired of people attacking the strawman that all Liberals are civil-libertarians, nyah, nyah, look at e.g. Dellums). Now, when you comprehend that, we go on to the next lesson: The Fundamental Problem in American politics is GET-A-MAJORITY. It is not "be a constitutional scholar", it is not "construct and defend the most rigorous argument for your position in terms of axiomatics from first principles", it isn't even "know what you're talking about". It is GET-A-MAJORITY. Old joke: After a campaign rally, a supporter told Adelai Stevenson "Mr. Stevenson, you've got every thinking man's vote!". He replied "That's not enough, I need a majority." Semi-digression: Business is "make a profit" - if you do that by throwing widows and orphans out into the street, it still works. What matters is how many dollars are made, not people affected. This is why Liberals view a population-based civil system as a necessary constraint on the imperatives of capital. Because ultimately we're people, not dollars. The goal of GET-A-MAJORITY is in great tension with intrinsically minority-rights, anti-majoritarian concepts such as civil-liberties. Any politician ignores this at great peril. Thus, Liberals who don't have to be elected can be a lot more vocal civil-liberties supporters than those who need to GET-A-MAJORITY. Thus even Liberal, civil-libertarian politicians may *vote against their principles* (do I hear gasps from the peanut gallery) because of electoral imperatives. Corollary 1: Detonating a nuclear device in DC will not solve this problem. The surviving government will just have a very good excuse for crypto-controls. Corollary 2: Repeated Libertarian rantings won't solve it either. Now, personally, you're probably not going to be seeing me on the crypto-barricades in the future. Is it because I'm a Big-Brother-loving government-worshipper? No, not at all. I was thinking today about what I could do on the issue. And I came to the conclusion that I'm basically so crippled and exhausted as a net.activist that I shouldn't do more (general statement, but set off by this particular topic). I can't stand a huge number of the people I'd have to work with, and I just don't have the patience and energy to keep pounding grains of understanding into them, it's like filling a sandbag with tweezers. But don't you dare assume support for crypto restrictions from that, it's rather coming to the point of being completely fed up with the drain of electronic activism on my life. ================ Seth Finkelstein sethf(a)mit.edu

3 2

Damn Do-Gooders
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It's people like this that are ruining the country. Anonymous wrote: >Dave Del Torto wrote: >> "All members of Congress, and particularly those of us on the Intelligence >> Committee, have a responsibility to find the proper balance between forward >> thinking commercial policies and the unquestioned need to protect the >> security of the American people and America's national interests." said >> HPSCI Chairman Porter J. Goss >I think we should all send Chairman Goss a letter of appreciation for >his offer to assassinate Child Murderer Janet Reno and Murderer Louis >Freeh. Most politicians are too cowardly to promise strong actions such >as this. I wish this damn do-gooder would just let me kill them myself. I hate owing people. Do-Badder

1 0

RE: RE: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no bill
by jay holovacs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Here I am Jay -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzCmKpkAAAEEANq8z8b2fiVI8rB3n3iJVyqDSGu7KdYy0hE95DDAbkh017ew oTEASfiZmP7mPXy9y7HWi9oYYIY1eGSH9Xe/oGLOfjoETKGES6YqObRJ5B5LmK+y Xxsv89NCw/K7s/OSm+CscewZqXt0cHnHFx7/9heGEqDNii3xgdXsLniA5KoFAAUR tB9KYXkgSG9sb3ZhY3MgPGhvbG92YWNzQGlvcy5jb20+ =c5gz -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- ========================== >From: Hiawatha Bray <wathab(a)tiac.net> >Subject: RE: House National Security committee guts SAFE, worse than no bill >Date: Wed, Sep 10, 1997 4:40 PM > >I hate to tip folks off as to my column for tomorrow, but that's exactly >what I'm doing in it. I have written that if the Feds try to impose >key-recovery crypto on me, I'll start using some encryption program that >doesn't comply with the law, and I'll send copies of the messages to the >Feds, so they can come and arrest me. If I really thought they would, I >wouldn't have written it! But I'll stand by it. > >Anyway, I don't presently encrypt my mail. No reason to--I ain't no >pedophile...;-) >So if I want to send crypto I must find some partner in crime. Any >volunteers? > >Hiawatha Bray >Technology Reporter >Boston Globe >P.O. Box 2378 >135 Morrissey Blvd. >Boston, MA 02107-2378 USA >617-929-3115 voice >617-929-3183 fax >http://members.tripod.com/~krothering/index.html > > >On Wednesday, September 10, 1997 10:04 AM, Syniker(a)aol.com

1 0

Cypherpunks September Bay Area Meeting _Update_
by Hugh Daniel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Update, more detail in the Agenda and a request for folks to where their "Key Escrow Agent" jackets for a photo op (from behind I would guess, but bring your mirror shades in any case...). Please also note that this is the 5th anniversary of Cypherpunks Meetings! Can thing get much stranger then this? What: Cypherpunks September 1997 Bay Area Meeting When: Saturday September 13, 12 noon till 5pm Where: PGP World Headquarters, 2nd floor meeting room Bayview Bank Building, just south of Hwy. 92 2121 S. El Camino Real, San Mateo California http://www.pgp.com/pgpcorp/contactpgp.cgi#head Agenda: Cypherpunks at HIP'97, Lucky Green, David Del Torto Ecash announcement, Jeremey Barrett, BlueMoney Software Corp. Linux Onion Router, Jeremey Barrett Diffie-Helman Free of Patent, Three Cheers 13:00 Washingtoon Crypo Legislation update, Kelly ??? of PGP New FBI Anti-Crypto Bill, how to react, Eric Hughes Break Forbes Article background, everyone Domain name conference report, John Gilmore Attacks on US remailers etc., Bill Stewart ??? After: Eat dinner somewhere nearby yet to be decided... PGP Building Access: This is an Open Meeting on US Soil and it is free for anyone to attend. There is a minor building security formality due to the facilities being in a bank building: anytime after 12 noon, approach the Bayview Building's Information window (in the plaza, see below for directions), and ask the Guard on Duty to let you up to the 2nd Floor for the Cypherpunks meeting (use the passphrase "cypherpunks release code"). If you have any difficulty (eg. if the guard is on a break), simply call DDT at +1 415 730 3583 he I'll let you in. You can arrive at any time during the scheduled meeting hours, though earlier is better if you want to hear the interesting stuff.

1 0

Re: in defense on Lon Horiuchi
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Zooko Journeyman blathered: > There are many issues one could legitimately argue regarding > a policeman who accidentally kills a non-combatant bystander > during a fight. But comparing such a policemen to a > terrorist who deliberately targets non-combatants with a bomb > is beyond the pale. That, but for my interruption, this > comparison would have passed unremarked among the cypherpunks > crowd is damning. As Tim and others have noted from time to time, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. A corollary to this is that one man's policeman is another man's terrorist. Calling Horiuchi - a //trained sniper// - a policeman is stretching credulity. Consider too that the Weavers weren't threatening anyone when they were initially attacked/ambushed by the Feds - so in what way were the Feds fulfilling a "policeman" role? In any case, it wasn't really my intention to "compare" the deeds of Horiuchi and McVeigh. I was merely noting that the defense of Horiuchi by Herr Direktor Freeh could have been used nearly verbatim in McVeigh's behalf. As you've pointed out, though, there /is/ that crucial difference though, isn't there? One of them has a badge and gets paid by the taxpayers, which makes him a "policeman."

3 2

Re: Any talk of limiting _existing_ crypto?
by Syniker＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Make it work simply for everyone with the push of a single button. It doesn't have to be secure, it has to be convenient. The only thing the masses need is the illusion of security. Then they will cry loudly when someone tries to take it away. Make it so that those who want strong security can jump through the necessary hoops to get it from the same program so that they can't take away yours and leave them with theirs.<< My feelings exactly... both levels 'need to be'.... but the simple level is what's needed most right now... I think a great number of people will be really angry at any potential seeming loss of 'privacy' in personal matters... or -- commercial for that matter... but most will have difficulty ... if it isn't an easy 'fix' for 'em... Larry.

1 0