- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Raph
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:22 AM 2/18/97 -0500, Alec wrote: >I have found it convenient to retrieve Raph's list off c'punks, as opposed to >fingering. I do hope this service to the community will continue on one forum >or another. You can of course also get it from the web page listed in the listing... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk/pub/crypto/pgp # (If this is a mailing list, please Cc: me on replies. Thanks.)

1 0

alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.*
by Mullen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I deleted the mailings which listed them. If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of alt.cypherpunks.technical alt.cypherpunks.social alt.cypherpunks.announce alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Did I miss any? Name-mangle? I also have listed the following alternate list hosts cypherpunks(a)algebra.com cypherpunks(a)cyberpass.net cypherpunks(a)ssz.com If anyone has a more complete list of hosts, I'd be happy for additions to the list. Thanks! ~ Patrick

1 0

Crypto Law Survey updated
by Bert-Jaap Koops 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I have just updated my survey of existing and envisaged cryptography laws and regulations. See the Crypto Law Survey at http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm This update includes: - New lay-out. Digital signatures replaced to a separate overview. - New entries on Finland (export), Hong Kong (import, export), New Zealand (export), Poland (import) -Update on Australia (government encryption of classified data), Finland (no key-escrow), France (TTP law published), Japan (general position, wiretap law), Netherlands (extend decryption command), OECD (Group of Expert okays guidelines), Scandinavia (secure email system), Switzerland (telecom encryption, export), US (Karn appeal, annual figures report) -Corrections or clarifications on Australia (export, public domain software), Belgium (export), Germany (export), US (Bernstein, NRC report) -URLs changed in France (TTP law), US (Bernstein) Bert-Jaap

1 0

Detweiler trolls^Wrides again
by Name Withheld by Request 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 14 Feb 1997, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: > Date: Fri, 14 Feb 97 12:57:17 -0800 > From: "Vladimir Z. Nuri" <vznuri(a)netcom.com> > To: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Keep it Simple and the Cypherpunk Way > > > what TCM continues to stick his head in the sand over > <snip><snip><snip> > > timmy, cpunks, etc. you are getting a lesson in REALITY. you are seeing a troll

1 0

Re: Constitution and a Right to Privacy
by snow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mr. may wrote: > At 1:22 PM -0600 2/17/97, snow wrote: > > My rights are WHATEVER ISN'T IN THE CONSTITUTION, and the government > >can only, ONLY do what the constitution says it can. > But why do you not object that the "right to free speech," "the right to > keep and bear arms," and so on, are specifically enumeratedin the Bill of > Rights? The privacy issue is that there is no such enumeration of a right > to privacy in the Bill of Rights, though many think it to be implicit in > some of the other enumerated rights, e.g,, the Fourth, and even in the > First. Amendment X- (1791) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. As far as my reading goes, the Constitution (of which the BoR is a portion, IIR my "civics" (more like uncivics) classes properly) doesn't give the Feds the right to invade my privacy, and although not _explicit_, Also: Amendment IX -(1791) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Seems to indicate that even if it isn't listed, we should still have it. Then: Amendment IV- (1791) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Seems (to me, and IANAL) indicate that there is (at least in the minds of the writers) a distinction between _public_ information which is fair game, and public information, which is only fair game if there is enough public information to justify crossing that line. > Constitutional issues are not easily discussed in short messages like this. > Suffice it to say the issue of whether a "right to privacy" exists has been > long discussed, most recently by Bork, Posner, and others (I skimmed the > latest Posner book a while back, and liked his style). There is a big question in my mind whether things are so complicated that we need lawyers, or they are so complicated because we have lawyers. It seems to me that the constitution is written rather simply, at least prior to the 14th amendment. Congress Shall Make No Law... where is the confusion? It is the fact that some people "know best" what is good for others, and wish to enforce this "knowlege" upon the rest of us. God save me from your over zelous followers. > > The issue hit when abortion advocates argued that a "woman's right to > privacy" allowed abortions. However, none of the enumerated rights made > this obvious. Bork has opined that no right to privacy can be inferred from > the Constitution. > > (And I always thought the "woman's right to privacy" argument for abortion > was flaky. Accepting such an argument, wouldn't infanticide be equally > protected by a woman's right to privacy?) Or a man's.

1 0

news article:fake email on Capitol Hill (fwd)
by Z.B. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 06:36:28 -0600 From: Gekko <gekko(a)midusa.net> To: dc-stuff(a)dis.org Subject: news article:fake email on Capitol Hill Spoofing Congress Fake e-mail floods Capitol Hill NO, THESE weren't lobbyists pummeling members of Congress with propaganda, but apparently pranksters under the guise of legitimate Net users. In recent weeks, they have flooded lawmakers with hundreds of e-mail threats to delete all files in the Capitol Hill computer system. One of the identities used was that of Mercury News Computing Editor Dan Gillmor in the ruse that included 200 messages to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. The FBI is looking into the incidents of "spoofing," but apparently no damage has yet been found. Story by Rory J. O'Connor of the Mercury News Washington Bureau

1 0

FW: Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest
by Mullen, Patrick 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>---------- Forwarded message ---------- >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 09:24:38 -0500 (EST) >From: Christof Paar <christof(a)ece.WPI.EDU> >To: christof(a)ece.WPI.EDU >Subject: (fwd) Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest >Newsgroups: sci.crypt > > >Rules for The Great DES Replacement Contest > >On 1997 Jan 02, the National Institute of Standards and Technology >of The Department of Commerce announced the start of a process to >approve an "Advanced Encryption Standard." (See the Federal >Register Vol. 62, No. 1, pp. 93-94; for example, by going to > > http://www.lib.auburn.edu/gpo/index.html > >and searching the Federal Register for "Advanced Encryption >Standard.") > > >The first part of the process seems to be requesting comments >on the cipher requirements and submission guidelines as follows: > >"Proposed Draft Minimum Acceptability Requirements and Evaluation >Criteria > > "The draft minimum acceptability requirements and evaluation >criteria are: > A.1 AES shall be publicly defined. > A.2 AES shall be a symmetric block cipher. > A.3 AES shall be designed so that the key length may be increased >as needed. > A.4 AES shall be implementable in both hardware and software. > A.5 AES shall either be (a) freely available or (b) available >under terms consistent with the American National Standards Institute >(ANSI) patent policy. > A.6 Algorithms which meet the above requirements will be judged >based on the following factors: > (a) Security (i.e., the effort required to cryptanalyze), > (b) Computational efficiency, > (c) Memory requirements, > (d) Hardware and software suitability, > (e) Simplicity, > (f) Flexibility, and > (g) Licensing requirements." > > >"Proposed Draft Submission Requirements" > > "In order to provide for an orderly, fair, and timely evaluation of >candidate algorithm proposals, submission requirements will specify the >procedures and supporting documentation necessary to submit a candidate >algorithm. > > B.1 A complete written specification of the algorithm including >all necessary mathematical equations, tables, and parameters needed to >implement the algorithm. > B.2 Software implementation and source code, in ANSI C code, which >will compile on a personal computer. This code will be used to compare >software performance and memory requirements with respect to other >algorithms. > B.3 Statement of estimated computational efficiency in hardware >and software. > B.4 Encryption example mapping a specified plaintext value into >ciphertext. > B.5 Statement of licensing requirements and patents which may be >infringed by implementations of this algorithm. > B.6 An analysis of the algorithm with respect to known attacks. > B.7 Statement of advantages and limitations of the submitted >algorithm." > >

1 0

Re: alt.cypherpunks.*, cypherpunks@*.*
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(A copy of this message has also been posted to the following newsgroups: alt.cypherpunks) At 9:02 AM -0500 2/19/97, Mullen, Patrick wrote: >I just got my news admin to add alt.cypherpunks. Unfortunately, I can't >remember the names of the subgroups (which weren't added), and I >deleted the mailings which listed them. > >If I remember correctly, they were along the lines of > >alt.cypherpunks.technical >alt.cypherpunks.social >alt.cypherpunks.announce >alt.cypherpunks.ebonics :-) Sorry, couldn't resist! Patrick reminds us of why a simple name like "alt.cypherpunks" is preferable to an extensive hierarchy: "I can't remember the names of the subgroups." It was a mistake, I believe, to create the various subgroups, and I hope they fail to propagate. I'd rather use more capable newsreading tools to scan _one_ group and follow interesting threads in it than try to remember what got posted where. And I especially don't want to see the predictable carping about how some topic "belongs" in one of the other groups! And many will simply cross-post their stuff to more than one of the groups, trying to guess which are most relevant, which are being read by enough people, etc. Even at a hundred messages a day, a single group is easily managed. And having four of them will not cut the traffic in the main group significantly. --Tim May, who plans to only post to the main group. -- Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

It's time to move on, kids.
by Name Withheld by Request 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As of 2/14/97 there are 1295 subscribers to the cypherpunks mailing list. 85 of those subscriptions are to other mail-exploders. Smoke 'em if you got 'em. -Golem

1 0

Re: Microsoft ammunition (fwd)
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Choate wrote: > > Forwarded message: > > > Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 16:11:50 -0600 > > From: Toto <toto(a)sk.sympatico.ca> > > Subject: Microsoft ammunition > > > But, if you're tired of the repetition, here's a > > reason you should sit through another sermon: > > RandomNoise's Coda. Coda lets you design entire > > Web pages in Java rather than use a mixture of > > HTML content, tags, and Java applets. > > > > A Java-based Web page removes the distinction > > between application and data. It presents data > > just as an HTML page would, but every element on > > the screen has the potential to be an interactive > > part of a sophisticated application. > > Mix this with the distributed processing model of Plan 9 and you may just > have tomorrows computer environment. I very much hope not. We designed HTML with very specific goals in mind, above all that the source be declarative and machine readable. That is why HTML can be edited by the recipient, fed into a voice synth or index by Alta-Vista. The Java based web pages will be opaque, just like postscript. Try to cut and paste from ghostview to emacs. Merging the distinction between applet and code will give lots of techno-geeks a nice orgasm but its the style of computing the Web has replaced. I have yet to see a single Java applet that has the slightest functional utility. I like Java as a language, particularly because it has killed C++ stone dead just as everyone thought it had taken over the world. I don't see that anyone has done anything with mobile code that is of interest however. If all you want is a better user interface add some more tags into HTML, implement Dave Raggets '94 draft perhaps. I think the idea of using Java to move an applet from the client to a server is very exciting but thats not in the Sun/Oracle game plan. The hypertext community had been beating the coda type model for decades before the Web. I was skeptical then and I'm more skeptical now. I turned Javascript, Active-X and Java off about 9 months back because I had little confidence in their security. I soon realised I was much happier when the page did not dance about in front of my eyes. I very rarely come to a site I can't access without them. If I could turn off animated Gifs as well I would be even happier. I think the future of computing is much more likely to lie in returning to simple but powerfull ideas. Presentation types, parallel languages and genuine process oriented object systems interest me much more. Phill

2 1