- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

The Remailer Crisis
by tcmay＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't think I've used "crisis" in a thread I started, so this tells you what I think. The remailers are stagnating, only very slowly adding important features, and the number is not growing...in fact, it's been shrinking. This, as the remailers are under attack. Editorialists are railing against the dangers of anonymity and remailers, and the "Church of Scientology" is threatening lawsuits against remailer operators unless they block certain newsgroups. (Lots of issues, clever workarounds proposed, etc.) Now whether or not the Church of Scientology, or RSADSI (for the RC4 code remailing), or anyone else could legally _win_ such a case is not the issue. Not many remailer operators would be able to mount a defense...they are not, frankly, folks heros as Zimmermann is--and even PRZ is struggling to raise money. Maybe the EFF (ugh) would leap into the fray, but I doubt it. Nope, I fear that the pressures that have driven several remailers to halt operation are just the tip of the iceberg. (Some remailers have quit because of words from their sysadmins, semi-threatening conversations with Brad Templeton--Hi, Brad!--, and so on. Real letters from real lawyers would have a profoundly more chilling effect.) We've debated this stuff many times, but the numbers of remailers are shrinking. Raph Levien summarized the situation nicely in a post to alt.anon-server: "We're down to fifteen remailers now, many of which are unreliable. I would say the remailer net is not in good shape right now. Fortunately, I know of a number of plans to bring new remailers up, as well as restoring old ones." (I hope Raph can share with us soon what some of the plans are, unless he fears revealing this will aid our opponents.) I could see the whole remailer system imploding. A few threatening letters, especially if sent by real lawyers, could demolish the few U.S. sites. And with the Netherlands toying with proposals to ban or limit private encryption, having Holland as the main remaining host for remailers would be rather precarious. We need lots more remailers, in many more countries. What can be done? * We need to get the number of "solid" remailers up from the current dozen or so up into the _hundreds_. * I favor separating the "account that remails" from the "owner of the site," as I have argued in vain in the past. (Example: a willing site gives out or sells many accounts...each is legally separate, and each must be legally challenged. My longer posts dealt with this.) (The owner of the site/machine can take a "hands off" attitude toward what his customers are doing in their accounts. This doesn't stop pressures from being applied, but it slows them down, and (probably) better insulates the owner from legal charges.) * Traffic needs to be increased. Remailers should probably go to constant padding traffic, to do this. Exhorting end-users to use remailers more won't be enough. * More offshore sites are needed. So far, only Canada and the Netherlands are offshore hosts (and Canada is effectively part of the U.S.). Some sites in Russia would be dramatic. Ditto for Asia, South America, etc. * The whole issue of "remailer businesses," with all the usual issues of digital postage, stamps, coupons, etc, has to be resolved. That is, we need to get some movement here. Most remailers are run as projects by students on machines they don't control, or that they can be pressured on, or with a committment to stay in business that will evaporate too easily. A business, with business responsibilities, is usually a more stable solution. I think we need to set some rough targets and brainstorm on how to get to them. For example, the Linux mavens could tell us if Linux-based remailer boxes could be hung on dedicated connections to The Little Garden network, as a specific example. A "black box remailer" such as several folks have suggested (Chaum (in 1981), me, Eric Hughes, others) might be buildable for under a grand. We could ask here for contributions, and might even raise this amount of money. Then each of us who contributed could have "accounts," maybe several of them. Imagine 100 or more "remailers" all on this one machine--I'm deliberately ignoring the security issue for now. Little Garden has stated categorically that they will not tell users what they can or can't do with their machines (though I can think of some cases where they might have to, as with spamming, etc.). Anyway, you can see where I'm headed. My big fear is that the one really major achievement of the Cypherpunks group, the remailers, are not increasing in number and could be knocked out all too easily with some legal attacks. It's time to get cracking on this crisis. --Tim May -- .......................................................................... Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)netcom.com | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero | knowledge, reputations, information markets, W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA | black markets, collapse of governments. Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available. Cypherpunks list: majordomo(a)toad.com with body message of only: subscribe cypherpunks. FAQ available at ftp.netcom.com in pub/tc/tcmay

1 0

EE Times on PRZ
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The Jan 16 issue of EE Times has an excellent article on the legal controversy surrounding Phil Zimmermann and PGP, positioned top-right front-cover for maximal exposure. It describes the aftermath of a meeting last week between Phil's attorney, Philip Dubois, and the government lawyer handling the case. "'We told the prosecutor our concerns,' Dubois said. 'He agreed to consider them. We might hear back in a month or two. He didn't make any promises.'" (Sometimes it seems like the gov't is dragging this case out intentionally. I believe the uncertainty does have a chilling effect on private development of strong crypto, which would be gone if the government announced it was not going to pursue the case, or if they did bring charges and lost.) Another interesting quote: "Zimmermann is not in danger of being indicted for willfully exporting PGP. Rather, the U.S. attorney's office, here, is considering charging him for making PGP available in such a manner that it could be exported by a third party." What the hell is this? Can anyone point to the statute they may be referring to here? This seems awfully broad. This, from a sidebar, is really surprising: "In contrast, public keys allow the overt publication of an encryption key, because decryption keys can only be derived through a mathematically difficult process, such as large prime-number factoring. Contrary to popular belief, the NSA can decrypt public keys of most practical key sizes." I wonder what this means? If it is a claim that the NSA can factor 1024 bit moduli that would certainly come as a big surprise. If they are saying that they can do 512 bits that would be more believable although of interest. It is strange that the author would include a statement like this without attribution or evidence. Generally, the article is very favorable towards Phil and an excellent overview of the case. Hal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQBVAwUBLxytnBnMLJtOy9MBAQHGnAH/TAOr6TNchZjCyMESeDdOf1seXTkfMbMY 3qrL91OmjwxDIBDkzszrgizwadKwWYn65yOY3yJ4Wk/xUcNwKFnk1Q== =PoYj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: EE Times on PRZ
by L. McCarthy 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hal quotes the 1/16/95 EE Times: > "Zimmermann is not in danger of being indicted > for willfully exporting PGP. Rather, the U.S. attorney's office, here, is > considering charging him for making PGP available in such a manner that > it could be exported by a third party." This is very odd indeed. It reminds me of the "like-a-book" shrink-wrap software license agreements. Did they expect PRZ to run PGP solely on a single computer at home, and allow house guests to use it ? Copies of a piece of software can obviously be handled in any fashion by their possessors. I can't conceive of a way to make software available without distributing copies, other than allowing global execute permission (but not read permission) for a copy running on an *ahem* "unhackable" server. I find it difficult to believe, however, that arms export control statutes written for munitions hardware mandate this extreme restriction on access. Such laws would turn the export-controlled section of a gun store into an analogue of the reference section of a library -- "you can use it here, but you can't check it out". People using strong crypto remotely are forced to trust the remote crypto server to some extent, which tends to defeat the whole purpose of the exercise. It also starts to sound like a model for GAK.... :[ Anyone have an email address for someone at EE Times ? -L. Futplex McCarthy; PGP key by finger or server "The objective is for us to get those conversations whether they're by an alligator clip or ones and zeroes. Wherever they are, whatever they are, I need them." -FBI Dir. Freeh - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBLxzKkmf7YYibNzjpAQG+XwQAm5385MOcsjY76auUIe24uTQMRhZ8u2Yy rIuGBdj/B4C1K9WRMhIWq1i1gMv4mBAF8FWfd/tPRfq5N49TgIyGY82SPmUczYgU N/w6unO5HpnpzcvCGq368r/2UpS4UndLVwZEik0JIsIvjm9+Pevz5SZA1Z+O1piI lJFQQgV3sck= =nYey - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLxzLrCoZzwIn1bdtAQGZKQGA1gpT6cXWN4pAwlRw2vOJJYCZvruyBde2 BOATJ32Sg19wwUXUk7z7A8VnVNU59twG =kjXQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

--> A Net-Petition to the Church of Scientology, Please Read (fwd)
by skaplin＠mirage.skypoint.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I thought this was topical and VERY much of interest here. Sam - -------- Forwarded message -------- Newsgroups: alt.2600,alt.activism,alt.atheism,alt.censorship,alt.clearing.technology,alt.conspiracy, Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 15:23:44 GMT From: noring(a)netcom.com (Jon Noring) Subject: --> A Net-Petition to the Church of Scientology, Please Read [Hurry! Signature tallying for this petition EXPIRES February 6, 1995! Be sure to send your signature to cos-petition(a)netcom.com -- see the instructions after the petition statement. The petition statement begins 68 lines down from here.] Following this short introductory section is the petition statement to the Church of Scientology and affiliated organizations regarding their recent legal actions which have very serious ramifications for freedom of expression on Usenet and the Internet. It is somewhat long, but the length is necessary to give you sufficient information to make an informed decision. I want to stress that this petition is NOT focused on the beliefs or practices of the Church of Scientology. Rather, it is focused on their recent legal action, and this petition demands that they reconsider these actions for the good of everyone, including themselves. It should also be made *very clear* that none of us should ever condone or support any action which would censor or inhibit Scientology supporters from being able to express their views and opinions on Usenet, the Internet, and all other electronic forums, provided they do so in accordance with accepted netiquette, as all of us should. I encourage you to read the petition statement carefully, and if you agree with all three demands (given near the end of the statement), to then "sign" it via Internet e-mail using the instructions which follow the statement. Do follow EXACTLY the directions on how to "sign"; they are not difficult. Note that only those with valid Internet-accessible e-mail addresses can sign this petition. Fortunately, nearly all on-line services, such as CompuServe, and many BBS, do offer Internet e-mail acess, so just about anybody who is electronically hooked up to some network in the world can sign this petition. If you are not sure what your Internet e-mail address is, ask your site's sysadmin/sysop for assistance. Please do upload this petition statement as soon as possible to any BBS and on-line service in your area. If you have access to one of the major national on-line services such as CompuServe, Prodigy, AOL, etc., do try to upload it there. We are trying to get at least 5000 signatures. Even more signatures are entirely possible if we each put in a little effort to inform others, such as friends and coworkers, about the importance of this petition to electronic freedom of expression. I plan to make the signatures publicly available on or shortly after February 7, 1995, and will also submit them to the Church of Scientology as well as the newsmedia. Important Note: Because of the unusual sensitivity of this petition, I will not submit nor reveal the e-mail signatures IF the total number of validated signatures is less than 1000. This offer is made for those who would feel "exposed" if their name appears on a list with a small number of signatures. I fully expect to surpass 1000 signatures in one or two days! In addition, unlike past net-petitions, providing one's full name in addition to one's e-mail address will be optional. However, I highly encourage you to be brave and include your full name, as all petitions are traditionally considered more "binding" if real names are used. I will tally the number of signatures with and without full names when the petition drive ends February 6, 1995. Thank you for your signature! Let's all do our part to keep all electronic networks free and open for everybody. Jon Noring (Disclaimer: Nothing written in this petition transmittal should be construed as legal advice. If you need legal assistance or advice concerning any of the issues brought up in this document, contact a qualified attorney.) **************** Beginning of Petition Statement ******************** TO: The Church of Scientology, The Religious Technology Center, Bridge Publications, Inc., Office of Special Affairs, and all other affiliated organizations, divisions and corporations of the Church of Scientology We, the undersigned, are disturbed by your recent legal attempts to stifle the free flow of information on the Internet and Usenet. Specifically, you have 1) threatened legal action against several automated anonymous remailers unless they filter out *all* e-mail targeted to the legitimate Usenet newsgroups alt.religion.scientology (a.r.s.), and alt.clearing.technology (a.c.t.), open forums where all points of view about Scientology, both pro and con, are welcome, and 2) demanded and actually attempted the removal of a.r.s. in gross defiance of accepted Usenet practice and netiquette. Concerning 1), since nearly all (if not all) of the e-mail sent to a.r.s. and a.c.t. via the remailers is legitimate and originates from individuals who sincerely believe they need to post anonymously because of the nature of discussion, your demand, if implemented, would prevent these individuals from freely expressing their views in the proper forum. Freedom of expression is internationally recognized as one of the most important and sacred of basic human rights, and your demands fly in the face of this recognition. Your second demand, removing a.r.s., would go even further in inhibiting freedom of expression on all electronic networks. It is a *very* serious matter to attempt to remove forums of free expression. Your primary argument for issuing these legal threats, according to your statements, are that some people (the "perpetrators") have knowingly posted *alleged* (meaning not yet demonstrated in a court of law) Church of Scientology copyrighted and trade secret material to a.r.s. and a.c.t., sometimes using the anonymous remailers as the carrier (because of the common carrier-like nature of anonymous remailers, the administrators of the remailers have no knowledge of such activity taking place). Though we do not condone making copyrighted material available on any electronic network without the permission of the copyright holder, your specific legal threats are short-sighted, perceived to be mean-spirited, ineffective, and are on tenuous legal grounds because 1) It won't stop those who are determined to make available alleged copyrighted materials on electronic networks. They will find other avenues on the electronic networks to do so. Only prosecuting the actual perpetrators will deter this alleged illegal activity. 2) Your demands, if met, will have the effect of leading to significant stifling of free speech and the exchange of information on all electronic networks which, if not illegal in some jurisdictions, goes against all accepted conventions of a free and open society, 3) You have not stated, nor is there any indication, that you intend to work in a cooperative manner with legitimate law-enforcement agencies, the courts, and/or the Internet to locate and prosecute the perpetrators of the *alleged* copyright violations in the countries they originated. Thus, your threats are being construed, rightly or wrongly, by most on the electronic networks as an attempt to stifle free discussion on Scientology rather than trying to locate and prosecute the perpetrators of the *alleged* copyright and trade secret violations. With respect to the attempted removal of the newsgroup a.r.s., you also stated that the word 'scientology' is trademarked and thus the name a.r.s. infringes on such trademark. This is appallingly ludicrous based on past case law of similar situations, as well as your implicit acknowledgement of the legitimacy of a.r.s. by allowing Church of Scientology approved information to be posted to it by your supporters, and possibly with your knowledge and/or approval, ever since it was created July 1991, almost 3.5 years ago. Therefore, we, the undersigned, make the following demands. 1) Regarding your charges of copyright violation over electronic networks: You will cease all legal action, now and in the future, against any person, company, organization, etc., associated or affiliated in any way with all electronic networks, including the Internet, except that action which is necessary to locate and prosecute the perpetrators (as previously defined) of alleged copyright and trade secret violations, and other activity in violation of law, and *only* in full cooperation with legitimate law-enforcement agencies and/or the courts. 2) Regarding your trademark challenge of the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology: You will cease all legal action, now and in the future, to remove any Usenet newsgroup, BBS forum, mailing list or other similar forum of public exchange of information over any electronic network, or to inhibit in any way the flow of information to and from these forums. This includes, for example, ceasing all legal action demanding a) the removal of the Usenet newsgroup alt.religion.scientology and b) that anonymous remailers add filters as previously described. 3) You will publicly and officially state a) That you support the existence of free and open forums on all electronic networks to discuss Scientology from all perspectives and points of view (which includes yours), and b) That you do not support nor condone attempts by any entity to electronically censor, remove, obstruct, or tamper with any electronic communication except when allowed by a valid court order. If you outright reject or refuse to even discuss these demands in a good faith manner on Usenet, we have no other option but to consider such rejection or refusal to even discuss to be an act of hostility by the Church of Scientology towards the users of all electronic networks and forums, including the Internet. We are certain you do not want this, and we do not want it either, so we offer to work with you any way we can with regard to any legitimate demands you may have concerning alleged copyright violation(s) and other illegal activity. However, any attempts by you of any kind to tamper or in any manner restrict the free flow of information (other than that *specifically* restricted by law -- and *only* that) on any electronic network is totally unacceptable and will not be tolerated for the reasons stated above. Signed, ******************* End of Petition Statement *********************** ====================================== Instructions for Signing This Petition ====================================== It must first be noted that this is a petition, not a vote. By "signing" it you agree with *all* the demands of the petition statement. If you do not agree with all the demands, then your only recourse is to not sign it. In addition, all e-mail signatures will be submitted to the Church of Scientology as well as the newsmedia provided more than 1000 validated signatures are obtained. Including your full name is optional, but very highly encouraged as that would add to the effectiveness of the petition. Signing via an anonymous remailer is discouraged, but not forbidden, as an attempt will be made to separately tally signatures from anonymous remailers. Signing this petition is not hard, but to make sure your signature is not lost or miscounted, please follow these directions exactly: 1) Prepare an e-mail message. In the main body (NOT the Subject line) of your e-mail include the ONE-LINE statement: SIGNED <Internet e-mail address> <Your full name (optional)> You need not include the "<" and ">" characters. 'SIGNED' should be capitalized. As stated above, your full name is optional, but highly recommended. If you do supply your name, please don't use a pseudonym or nickname, or your first name -- it's better to just leave it blank if it's not your full and real name. *************************************** Example: My e-mail signature would be: SIGNED noring(a)netcom.com Jon E. Noring *************************************** 2) Please DON'T include a copy of this petition, nor any other text, in your e-mail message. If you have comments to make, send e-mail to me personally, and NOT to the special petition e-mail signature address. 3) Send your e-mail message containing your signature to the following Internet e-mail address and NOT to me: =========================== cos-petition(a)netcom.com =========================== 4) Within a few days of receipt of your signature, an automated acknowledgment will be e-mailed to you for e-mail address verification purposes. You do not need to respond or reply to this acknowledgement when you receive it. Thank you for signing this petition! Jon Noring (p.s., send your signature to cos-petition(a)netcom.com) - -- OmniMedia | The Electronic Bookstore. Come in and browse! Two 1312 Carlton Place | locations: ftp.netcom.com /pub/Om/OmniMedia/books Livermore, CA 94550 | and ftp.awa.com /pub/softlock/pc/products/OmniMedia 510-294-8153 | E-book publishing service follows NWU recommendations. - -- ============================================================================== skaplin(a)skypoint.com | Finger skaplin(a)infinity.c2.org for | a listing of crypto related files PGP encrypted mail is accepted and | available on my auto-responder. preferred. | (Yes...the faqs are there!) | E-mail key(a)four11.com for PGP Key or | "...vidi vici veni" - Overheard Finger skaplin(a)mirage.skypoint.com | outside a Roman brothel. ============================================================================== A skydiving school is one in which you MUST be a dropout to graduate -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBLxzTPslnXxBRSgfNAQFJuwf9H7Y6hDvywsw5avIiFba+P32Ftbd9KibP c4SBKp77jEiEZZ3r5LjBNttXDp4muci30cpiazIi/2p3ksFN6W1WCSs9/Uu1l1cO 8r54Am78JKuRZy+TENcLaQAiOyRc0Yxrmp+G8SBCeM+wwlEP8/OHmcnoFxhFYi27 TWMdyFa4j/ethsPt/6J5R4g5nfdVo3Y3rdxdkofNoORzh9jj12lZyn3xMUT9jSag 4mFEZTTQb8aeRwKVOZAqS1J5RxQBxuVyYaNBz9VE54MS2X/Ix81WUGA0IgkY/ZjW EWdlDjxtl0OpjcXa2viis1fD29EYaDXSgogoTWhtmKZCdOjB0QgKiw== =TwRa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

NYT on Prodigy Web and Checkfree Suit
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Peter Lewis writes today on Prodigy's new offering of World Wide Web service. For email copy send blank message with subject: PRO_www Saul Hansell writes today on Checkfree's new patent and suit against National Payment Clearing House, a subsidiary of Intuit. For email copy send blank message with subject: CHK_sue For twin use subject: PRO_CHK

1 0

TEMPEST
by joelm＠eskimo.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I know, it's a little bit outside the normal realm of discussion, but... The Cyphernomicon talks about a proposed, early Cypherpunk project that dealt with TEMPEST/VanEck monitoring. Did anyone carry this out beyond the idea stage? All I ever seem to see is "theory" and "hear-say" on this topic (and the original VanEck article appears dated and incomplete). I noticed the Consumertronics (John Williams in Alamogordo, New Mexico) catalog has an assembled device that will work with EGA to SVGA monitors. $3,995 seems a bit pricey though (or is it). Has anyone had dealings with Consumertronics in the past? Replies directly back to me if this is a waste of bandwidth for the rest of the list. Thanks... Joel McNamara joelm(a)eskimo.com - finger for PGP key

2 1

[pagre@weber.ucsd.edu: Supreme Court decision on anonymity]
by lethin＠ai.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Return-Path: <rre-request(a)weber.ucsd.edu> Resent-Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 18:00:48 -0800 Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 18:00:02 -0800 From: Phil Agre <pagre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> To: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Subject: Supreme Court decision on anonymity Resent-From: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Reply-To: rre-maintainers(a)weber.ucsd.edu X-Url: http://communication.ucsd.edu/pagre/rre.html X-Mailing-List: <rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu> archive/latest/534 X-Loop: rre(a)weber.ucsd.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: rre-request(a)weber.ucsd.edu Dave Banisar from the Electronic Privacy Information Center sent me the enclosed text of the US Supreme Court's decision denying the constitutionality of laws banning anonymous leaflets. This decision has an obvious relevance to current debates about regulating anonymous messages on the Internet. Date: Tue, 17 Jan 1995 16:17:44 EST From: Dave Banisar <banisar(a)washofc.epic.org> Subject: anonymity [...] TALLEY v. CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 362 U.S. 60 January 13-14, 1960, Argued March 7, 1960, Decided Certiorari to the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County. 172 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 797, 332 P. 2d 447, reversed. A. L. Wirin and Hugh R. Manes argued the cause for petitioner. With them on the brief was Fred Okrand. Philip E. Grey argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Roger Arnebergh. Shad Polier, Will Maslow, Leo Pfeffer and Joseph B. Robison filed a brief for the American Jewish Congress, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. Warren, Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Whittaker, Stewart MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented here is whether the provisions of a Los Angeles City ordinance restricting the distribution of handbills "abridge the freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution." n1 The ordinance, @ 28.06 of the Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles, provides: "No person shall distribute any hand-bill in any place under any circumstances, which does not have printed on the cover, or the face thereof, the name and address of the following: "(a) The person who printed, wrote, compiled or manufactured the same. "(b) The person who caused the same to be distributed; provided, however, that in the case of a fictitious person or club, in addition to such fictitious name, the true names and addresses of the owners, managers or agents of the person sponsoring said hand-bill shall also appear thereon." The petitioner was arrested and tried in a Los Angeles Municipal Court for violating this ordinance. It was stipulated that the petitioner had distributed handbills in Los Angeles, and two of them were presented in evidence. Each had printed on it the following: National Consumers Mobilization, Box 6533, Los Angeles 55, Calif. PLeasant 9-1576. The handbills urged readers to help the organization carry on a boycott against certain merchants and businessmen, whose names were given, on the ground that, as one set of handbills said, they carried products of "manufacturers who will not offer equal employment opportunities to Negroes, Mexicans, and Orientals." There also appeared a blank, which, if signed, would request enrollment of the signer as a "member of National Consumers Mobilization," and which was preceded by a statement that "I believe that every man should have an equal opportunity for employment no matter what his race, religion, or place of birth." The Municipal Court held that the information printed on the handbills did not meet the requirements of the ordinance, found the petitioner guilty as charged, and fined him $ 10. The Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles affirmed the conviction, rejecting petitioner's contention, timely made in both state courts, that the ordinance invaded his freedom of speech and press in violation of the Fourteenth and First Amendments to the Federal Constitution. n2 172 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 797, 332 P. 2d 447. Since this was the highest state court available to petitioner, we granted certiorari to consider this constitutional contention. 360 U.S. 928. In Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, we held void on its face an ordinance that comprehensively forbade any distribution of literature at any time or place in Griffin, Georgia, without a license. Pamphlets and leaflets, it was pointed out, "have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty" n3 and enforcement of the Griffin ordinance "would restore the system of license and censorship in its baldest form." Id., at 452. A year later we had before us four ordinances each forbidding distribution of leaflets -- one in Irvington, New Jersey, one in Los Angeles, California, one in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and one in Worcester, Massachusetts. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147. Efforts were made to distinguish these four ordinances from the one held void in the Griffin case. The chief grounds urged for distinction were that the four ordinances had been passed to prevent either frauds, disorder, or littering, according to the records in these cases, and another ground urged was that two of the ordinances applied only to certain city areas. This Court refused to uphold the four ordinances on those grounds pointing out that there were other ways to accomplish these legitimate aims without abridging freedom of speech and press. Frauds, street littering and disorderly conduct could be denounced and punished as offenses, the Court said. Several years later we followed the Griffin and Schneider cases in striking down a Dallas, Texas, ordinance which was applied to prohibit the dissemination of information by the distribution of handbills. We said that although a city could punish any person for conduct on the streets if he violates a valid law, "one who is rightfully on a street . . . carries with him there as elsewhere the constitutional right to express his views in an orderly fashion . . . by handbills and literature as well as by the spoken word." Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413, 416. The broad ordinance now before us, barring distribution of "any hand-bill in any place under any circumstances," n4 falls precisely under the ban of our prior cases unless this ordinance is saved by the qualification that handbills can be distributed if they have printed on them the names and addresses of the persons who prepared, distributed or sponsored them. For, as in Griffin, the ordinance here is not limited to handbills whose content is "obscene or offensive to public morals or that advocates unlawful conduct." n5 Counsel has urged that this ordinance is aimed at providing a way to identify those responsible for fraud, false advertising and libel. Yet the ordinance is in no manner so limited, nor have we been referred to any legislative history indicating such a purpose. Therefore we do not pass on the validity of an ordinance limited to prevent these or any other supposed evils. This ordinance simply bars all handbills under all circumstances anywhere that do not have the names and addresses printed on them in the place the ordinance requires. There can be no doubt that such an identification requirement would tend to restrict freedom to distribute information and thereby freedom of expression. "Liberty of circulating is as essential to that freedom as liberty of publishing; indeed, without the circulation, the publication would be of little value." Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S., at 452. Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all. The obnoxious press licensing law of England, which was also enforced on the Colonies was due in part to the knowledge that exposure of the names of printers, writers and distributors would lessen the circulation of literature critical of the government. The old seditious libel cases in England show the lengths to which government had to go to find out who was responsible for books that were obnoxious to the rulers. John Lilburne was whipped, pilloried and fined for refusing to answer questions designed to get evidence to convict him or someone else for the secret distribution of books in England. Two Puritan Ministers, John Penry and John Udal, were sentenced to death on charges that they were responsible for writing, printing or publishing books. n6 Before the Revolutionary War colonial patriots frequently had to conceal their authorship or distribution of literature that easily could have brought down on them prosecutions by English-controlled courts. Along about that time the Letters of Junius were written and the identity of their author is unknown to this day. n7 Even the Federalist Papers, written in favor of the adoption of our Constitution, were published under fictitious names. It is plain that anonymity has sometimes been assumed for the most constructive purposes. We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462. The reason for those holdings was that identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. This broad Los Angeles ordinance is subject to the same infirmity. We hold that it, like the Griffin, Georgia, ordinance, is void on its face. The judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court of the State of California is reversed and the cause is remanded to it for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. Footnotes n1 Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 154. Cf. Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 450. n2 Petitioner also argues here that the ordinance both on its face and as construed and applied "arbitrarily denies petitioner equal protection of the laws in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection" Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument is based on the fact that the ordinance applies to handbills only, and does not include within its proscription books, magazines and newspapers. Our disposition of the case makes it unnecessary to consider this contention. n3 The Court's entire sentence was: "These [pamphlets and leaflets] indeed have been historic weapons in the defense of liberty, as the pamphlets of Thomas Paine and others in our own history abundantly attest." It has been noted that some of Thomas Paine's pamphlets were signed with pseudonyms. See Bleyer, Main Currents in the History of American Journalism (1927), 90-93. Illustrations of other anonymous and pseudonymous pamphlets and other writings used to discuss important public questions can be found in this same volume. n4 Section 28.00 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code defines "handbill" as follows: "'HAND-BILL' shall mean any hand-bill, dodger, commercial advertising circular, folder, booklet, letter, card, pamphlet, sheet, poster, sticker, banner, notice or other written, printed or painted matter calculated to attract attention of the public." n5 Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S., at 451. n6 Penry was executed and Udal died as a result of his confinement. 1 Hallam, The Constitutional History of England (1855), 205-206, 232. n7 In one of the letters written May 28, 1770, the author asked the following question about the tea tax imposed on this country, a question which he could hardly have asked but for his anonymity: "What is it then, but an odious, unprofitable exertion of a speculative right, and fixing a badge of slavery upon the Americans, without service to their masters?" 2 Letters of Junius (1821) 39. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. In judging the validity of municipal action affecting rights of speech or association protected against invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not believe that we can escape, as Mr. Justice Roberts said in Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 161, "the delicate and difficult task" of weighing "the circumstances" and appraising "the substantiality of the reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free enjoyment of" speech. More recently we have said that state action impinging on free speech and association will not be sustained unless the governmental interest asserted to support such impingement is compelling. See N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 463, 464; Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234, 265 (concurring opinion); see also Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516. Here the State says that this ordinance is aimed at the prevention of "fraud, deceit, false advertising, negligent use of words, obscenity, and libel," in that it will aid in the detection of those responsible for spreading material of that character. But the ordinance is not so limited, and I think it will not do for the State simply to say that the circulation of all anonymous handbills must be suppressed in order to identify the distributors of those that may be of an obnoxious character. In the absence of a more substantial showing as to Los Angeles' actual experience with the distribution of obnoxious handbills, * such a generality is for me too remote to furnish a constitutionally acceptable justification for the deterrent effect on free speech which this all-embracing ordinance is likely to have. On these grounds I concur in the judgment of the Court. Footnotes: * On the oral argument the City Attorney stated: "We were able to find out that prior to 1931 an effort was made by the local Chamber of Commerce, urging the City Council to do something about these handbills and advertising matters which were false and misleading -- had no names of sponsors. They were particularly interested in the fictitious name. They said, 'Who are these people that are distributing; who are advertising; doing things of that sort?' The meager record that we were able to find indicates that a request from the Council to the City Attorney as to their legal opinion on this subject [sic]. The City Attorney wrote back and formed the conclusion that distribution of handbills, pamphlets, or other matters, without the name of the fictitious firm or officers would be legal [sic]. Thereafter in the early part of 1932 an ordinance was drafted, and submitted to the City Council, and approved by them, which related to the original subject -- unlawful for any person, firm or association to distribute in the city of Los Angeles any advertisement or handbill -- or any other matter which does not have the names of the sponsors of such literature." MR. JUSTICE CLARK, whom MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER and MR. JUSTICE WHITTAKER join, dissenting. To me, Los Angeles' ordinance cannot be read as being void on its face. Certainly a fair reading of it does not permit a conclusion that it prohibits the distribution of handbills "of any kind at any time, at any place, and in any manner," Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 451 (1938), as the Court seems to conclude. In Griffin, the ordinance completely prohibited the unlicensed distribution of any handbills. As I read it, the ordinance here merely prohibits the distribution of a handbill which does not carry the identification of the name of the person who "printed, wrote, compiled . . . manufactured [or] . . . caused" the distribution of it. There could well be a compelling reason for such a requirement. The Court implies as much when it observes that Los Angeles has not "referred to any legislative history indicating" that the ordinance was adopted for the purpose of preventing "fraud, false advertising and libel." But even as to its legislative background there is pertinent material which the Court overlooks. At oral argument, the City's chief law enforcement officer stated that the ordinance was originally suggested in 1931 by the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce in a complaint to the City Council urging it to "do something about these handbills and advertising matters which were false and misleading." Upon inquiry by the Council, he said, the matter was referred to his office, and the Council was advised that such an ordinance as the present one would be valid. He further stated that this ordinance, relating to the original inquiry of the Chamber of Commerce, was thereafter drafted and submitted to the Council. It was adopted in 1932. In the face of this and the presumption of validity that the ordinance enjoys, the Court nevertheless strikes it down, stating that it "falls precisely under the ban of our prior cases." This cannot follow, for in each of the three cases cited, the ordinances either "forbade any distribution of literature . . . without a license," Lovell v. Griffin, supra, or forbade, without exception, any distribution of handbills on the streets, Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413 (1943); or, as in Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147 (1939), which covered different ordinances in four cities, they were either outright bans or prior restraints upon the distribution of handbills. I, therefore, cannot see how the Court can conclude that the Los Angeles ordinance here "falls precisely" under any of these cases. On the contrary, to my mind, they neither control this case nor are apposite to it. In fact, in Schneider, depended upon by the Court, it was held, through Mr. Justice Roberts, that, "In every case . . . where legislative abridgment of the rights is asserted, the courts should be astute to examine the effect of the challenged legislation . . . weigh the circumstances and . . . appraise the substantiality of the reasons advanced . . . ." Id., at 161. The Court here, however, makes no appraisal of the circumstances, or the substantiality of the claims of the litigants, but strikes down the ordinance as being "void on its face." I cannot be a party to using such a device as an escape from the requirements of our cases, the latest of which was handed down only last month. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516. n1 Therefore, before passing upon the validity of the ordinance, I would weigh the interests of the public in its enforcement against the claimed right of Talley. The record is barren of any claim, much less proof, that he will suffer any injury whatever by identifying the handbill with his name. Unlike N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), which is relied upon, there is neither allegation nor proof that Talley or any group sponsoring him would suffer "economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion [or] other manifestations of public hostility." Id., at 462. Talley makes no showing whatever to support his contention that a restraint upon his freedom of speech will result from the enforcement of the ordinance. The existence of such a restraint is necessary before we can strike the ordinance down. But even if the State had this burden, which it does not, the substantiality of Los Angeles' interest in the enforcement of the ordinance sustains its validity. Its chief law enforcement officer says that the enforcement of the ordinance prevents "fraud, deceit, false advertising, negligent use of words, obscenity, and libel," and, as we have said, that such was its purpose. In the absence of any showing to the contrary by Talley, this appears to me entirely sufficient. I stand second to none in supporting Talley's right of free speech -- but not his freedom of anonymity. The Constitution says nothing about freedom of anonymous speech. In fact, this Court has approved laws requiring no less than Los Angeles' ordinance. I submit that they control this case and require its approval under the attack made here. First, Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan, 229 U.S. 288 (1913), upheld an Act of Congress requiring any newspaper using the second-class mails to publish the names of its editor, publisher, owner, and stockholders. 39 U. S. C. @ 233. Second, in the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act, 2 U. S. C. @ 267, Congress requires those engaged in lobbying to divulge their identities and give "a modicum of information" to Congress. United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 625 (1954). Third, the several States have corrupt practices acts outlawing, inter alia, the distribution of anonymous publications with reference to political candidates. n2 While these statutes are leveled at political campaign and election practices, the underlying ground sustaining their validity applies with equal force here. No civil right has a greater claim to constitutional protection or calls for more rigorous safeguarding than voting rights. In this area the danger of coercion and reprisals -- economic and otherwise -- is a matter of common knowledge. Yet these statutes, disallowing anonymity in promoting one's views in election campaigns, have expressed the overwhelming public policy of the Nation. Nevertheless the Court is silent about this impressive authority relevant to the disposition of this case. All three of the types of statutes mentioned are designed to prevent the same abuses -- libel, slander, false accusations, etc. The fact that some of these statutes are aimed at elections, lobbying, and the mails makes their restraint no more palatable, nor the abuses they prevent less deleterious to the public interest, than the present ordinance. All that Los Angeles requires is that one who exercises his right of free speech through writing or distributing handbills identify himself just as does one who speaks from the platform. The ordinance makes for the responsibility in writing that is present in public utterance. When and if the application of such an ordinance in a given case encroaches on First Amendment freedoms, then will be soon enough to strike that application down. But no such restraint has been shown here. After all, the public has some rights against which the enforcement of freedom of speech would be "harsh and arbitrary in itself." Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U.S. 77, 88 (1949). We have upheld complete proscription of uninvited door-to-door canvassing as an invasion of privacy. Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S. 622 (1951). Is this less restrictive than complete freedom of distribution -- regardless of content -- of a signed handbill? And commercial handbills may be declared verboten, Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942), regardless of content or identification. Is Talley's anonymous handbill, designed to destroy the business of a commercial establishment, passed out at its very front door, and attacking its then lawful commercial practices, more comportable with First Amendment freedoms? I think not. Before we may expect international responsibility among nations, might not it be well to require individual responsibility at home? Los Angeles' ordinance does no more. Contrary to petitioner's contention, the ordinance as applied does not arbitrarily deprive him of equal protection of the law. He complains that handbills are singled out, while other printed media -- books, magazines, and newspapers -- remain unrestrained. However, "the problem of legislative classification is a perennial one, admitting of no doctrinaire definition. Evils in the same field may be of different dimensions and proportions, requiring different remedies. . . . Or the reform may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind. . . . The prohibition of the Equal Protection Clause goes no further than the invidious discrimination. [I] cannot say that that point has been reached here." Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U.S. 483, 489 (1955). I dissent. Footnotes n1 "When it is shown that state action threatens significantly to impinge upon constitutionally protected freedom it becomes the duty of this Court to determine whether the action bears a reasonable relationship to the achievement of the governmental purpose asserted as its justification." 361 U.S., at 525. n2 Thirty-six States have statutes prohibiting the anonymous distribution of materials relating to elections. E. g.: Kan. Gen. Stat., 1949, @ 25-1714; Minn. Stat. Ann. @ 211.08; Page's Ohio Rev. Code Ann. @ 3599.09; Purdon's Pa. Stat. Ann., Title 25, @ 3546. _________________________________________________________________________ David Banisar (Banisar(a)epic.org) * 202-544-9240 (tel) Electronic Privacy Information Center * 202-547-5482 (fax) 666 Pennsylvania Ave, SE, Suite 301 * ftp/gopher/wais cpsr.org Washington, DC 20003 * HTTP://epic.digicash.com/epic

2 1

Re: Another problem w/Data Havens...
by Ben.Goren＠asu.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:33 PM 1/18/95, Paul J. Ste. Marie wrote: >[. . .] As long as >some piece of info is considered to be a thought-crime, everyone who accepts >info from a wide range of sources is at risk. We might have a test case right now for part of that idea--the Scientologists. They're essentially claiming that the various newsgroups should be shut down because somebody put thoughtcrime on them. I would posit that the operator of any automated data transmission/massaging service is not responsible for the data that passes through her equipment. Consider, for example, if I used a bang path to route an illicit email note through, say, apple.com. Does that make Apple Computer responsible for what I send? Tying in with some of Eric's comments, this could be viewed as a fundamental flaw in the 'net: it's the sender, generally, who initiates and controls the connection, not the recipient. We could view this as an advantage: how can you blame me for what somebody else does to my computer without my knowledge, especially if I have no way to stop it short of getting off the 'net completely? >> ... The service could even be advertised as a different form of timestamping >>(or notarizing). Not only do you get the file back signed, but you get it >>back encrypted and signed. ... > >That would still be a useful service, however, but it does transfer the risk >from the DH operator to the encryptor. Since he isn't leaving evidence on a >hard drive, his window of vunerability is somewhat less. Less to nonexistent. If no human sees it on the encrypting site, no human can be responsible for it. "They" would have to ban the service outright, or try to prove that you knew that your site would be used for illicit purposes. If putting a warning to not export crypto software on an ftp site is sufficient protection--and, judging from the number of sites which do no more than that, it is--then a simple statement that the service is not to be used for any illegal purpose should do fine here. > --Paul J. Ste. Marie > pstemari(a)well.sf.ca.us, pstemari(a)erinet.com b& -- Ben.Goren(a)asu.edu, Arizona State University School of Music Finger ben(a)tux.music.asu.edu for PGP public key ID 0x875B059.

2 1

Re: Key backup (was: How do I know . ..)
by Dr. D.C. Williams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- 'Eric Hughes' was reported to have written: > You use your friends now because off-site storage facilities are not > yet available. The software for distributed remote backup has yet to > make this operation transparent. Even when such a system becomes available, I don't think that it will obviate the need for relatively secure on-site storage. Banks and safe deposit boxes haven't completely precluded the demand for safes at home. Many people don't trust banks. Fewer will completely trust cypherbanks and distributed.net.storage systems. > I suspect that most private keys in the future will be held in PCMCIA > cards (initially) and then their smaller replacements. Backing up a > private key to these allows use of a safe deposit box. Safe deposit boxes, by virtue of their accessibility to law enforcement, are subject to search and seizure under court order and are sealed in certain cases (probate). This makes them likely to be the first place to look when the Feds decide that we can't have keys anymore. Personally speaking, I'll take my chances with secure "on-site" storage, even if I choose a location other than my own home or business. > If it's still "passphrase-protected", an attacker would a) have to know > what to look for > For scalability, most people will use some standard method, whatever > it is. This limits the search space of an opponent. If barcoding is our example, what's to prevent it from being printed in a format selected by the user? Printing on a small paper/plastic label and affixng it (in whole or in parts) to other objects effectively disguises it as a UPC label. You would have to know which labels are a part of a keyring for them to have any significance. Even George Bush now knows that every commercial product has a UPC on it somewhere. Many stores add their own UPC sticker to merchandise for inventory control purposes. Break a keyring into 4 or 5 pieces (whatever it takes to make each piece comparable in size and appearance to the standard UPC label), stick them on selected objects, and let someone who knows what they're looking for try and reconstruct your keyring from the universe of combinations of UPC labels found around your home. With an unknown number of parts, this seems like a practically insurmountable problem. This becomes a stego problem as well as a key decryption problem. With barcoding as the standard, another person prints his key on a small unmarked card and hides it somewhere deemed to be secure by him. The UPC-label attack fails because his keyring isn't disguised as UPC product labels. How does the attacker know what to look for? True Paranoids could devise some sort of "invisible ink" method, requiring UV or heat exposure before the barcode becomes visible. Now your backup key looks like a blank sheet of paper. ;-) My point is that with a regular barcode-generation program and a laser printer, an infinite number of formats and combinations can be created by individual users to suit their needs. You can print an 8.5 x 11 sheet with the title "PGP secret keyring" and put it in a frame hung on the wall, or you can print a bunch of split key pseudo-UPC labels and put one on the back of the frame to disguise it as the manufacturer's product label. One method is secure and the other is not, but the specifics are left to the user because the method is sufficiently flexible to allow a number of formats. I contend that anyone capable of running PGP properly is also capable of using a barcode printing program without difficulty (check out the back of PC Magazine). All that would need to be written is a short routine to convert the encrypted keyring into a format suitable as input for a program of this nature. Heck, there's probably a PD barcode program out there already. My question to the respected elders of this list is "how or why is this type of key backup system insecure, if it is in fact insecure?" =D.C. Williams <dcwill(a)ee.unr.edu> - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBLx1VlyoZzwIn1bdtAQFT5QF+N2RGEpj37fT0iCUnPdnkaUWItbC+HHAj eFAyBU7fNOnHGwiriHnuEcYaZxBV6lst =l3PL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Re: (none)
by jalicqui＠prairienet.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric wrote: > From: jalicqui(a)prairienet.org (Jeff Licquia) > > I'm sure that when your hypothetical remailer comes up and I decide to spam > you with your own words (now I wouldn't do that, now would I? ;-), your > sysadmin will be comforted by knowing that it's only ones and zeros filling > his hard disk. > >Why sendmail doesn't have anti-spam protection at this point is beyond >me. Denial of email service to one user should not deny service to >all others. I consider broken any email system that crashes a machine >because of a disk partition filling. Yes, this is true. Even if it didn't crash the system, however, it could have the effect of disabling mail service, either to all users on the system or to the particular user being spammed (depending on the robustness of the system). Though it's not as likely to anger the sysadmin, it is more likely to anger the spamee. More to the point, if the spammer uses random anonymous remailers to protect his/her identity, there's no good way to prevent this attack short of installing a filter of some kind or refusing mail from remailers. If no one will accept mail from the anon remailers, what good are they? >When your email provider gave you an account, was there an agreement >as to how much mail you could receive? If there wasn't, that provider >has no good reason to complain if you receive as much email as >possible. Merely because some else decided to send it to you does not >relieve a provider who has agreed to deliver all mail of that >obligation. I though most usage agreements had something in them about reasonable limits and such. On that basis, a provider could choose to auto-kill spam if they thought it "unreasonable". This of course assumes that providers always abide by well-defined rules and are not arbitrary in any way. :-) {As to my personal situation, since you asked: Prairienet has quotas.) > In the real world, however, there will > always be problems with "acceptable use" and "abuse", along with the > additional problems with establishing policy and so on. > >"Acceptable use" is shorthand for "It's a little rickety, please don't >play hard." That is, the technical means to limit the consequences of >abuse were not developed, because everyone was willing to play nice. >This doesn't scale, and it will have to be fixed before everyone will >put their home computer directly on the net. It's been my experience up to this point that for each security safeguard put in place, there will be someone somewhere that will find a way to breach it. Perhaps strong crypto will serve to end that trend; I doubt it, though, due to the horrid legal situation. Thus I doubt that written, human-enforced policy will disappear anytime soon. Not an ideal situation, I must admit.

1 0