- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Is Hate Code Speech?
by mcw＠atreus.ncs.ncsc.mil 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've searched the web and newsgroups several times, and found no mention of "Willa Jackson". I find it unlikely that this is real. Despite my respect for Mr. Geiger, I must disagree - I don't find the suit frivolous at all. Briefly, I think that anyone who maintains software will agree that naming variables & functions by any standard other than that of their function is poor programming practice, and impedes maintenance. Clearly the authors of the code had some intent other than that of writing maintainable code. The fact that there were one or more coherent themes in the names chosen indicates that their agenda was probably coherent. The fact that management took no action when informed of this indicates a complicity. In essence, I believe that we are all entitled to a workplace free of hate, and full of respect for our professional abilities. For sheer economic reasons, I think that the management of any responsible firm will act to ensure that (respect is worth quite a few $$ in compensation). I acknowledge that you're welcome to use whatever variable names you want in code you write in private. BUt if you want to sell that code, it should be held to a standard of professionalism.

3 4

Level30 Newsletter (fwd)
by William Knowles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Recently, you requested from our email autoresponder a copy of The Agincourt Project. You were not alone. That document has made its way around the world. Law enforcement agencies, public officials, prosecutors, ISP's and concerned citizens have all been reading it. And it has made a difference. Illegal obscenity and child pornography IS being removed from the Internet. And now that the first round of the CDA legal battle is over, and the focus in the battle against Internet pornography will change back to the enforcement of local obscenity and child pornography laws. But the issues are complex, and a single document is just not enough to keep the public informed. And so we have started Level30. Since you had an interest in The Agincourt Project (whatever your position on it), we thought you'd be interested in Level30. To receive this biweekly (or more frequently) newsletter, simply send an e-mail message To: majordomo(a)databack.com Subject: (leave blank) Message: subscribe level30 About the Purpose - To instruct families on how to safely use the Internet, and to inform families, law enforcement, the media and other interested Internet organizations about breaking news in the fight to keep illegal pornography and child pornography OFF the Internet. About the Title - This is the Offense Level mandated by the United States Sentencing Commission for the trafficking of child pornography often found on the Internet in Usenet newsgroups. (Base offense level - 17; if the material involves a prepubescent minor, increase by 2 levels; if the offense involves distribution, increase by at least 5 levels; if the offense involves material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence, increase by 4 levels; and if a computer was used to transport or ship the visual depiction, increase by 2 levels.) (The Sentencing Table can be found at http://www.ussc.gov.) About the Author - Paul D. Cardin, P.A Member of the Board of Directors of Oklahomans for Children And Families (OCAF) Author of The Agincourt Project - the electronic expose that explains how Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are responsible for the distribution of illegal pornography and child pornography throughout America. Architect of the most effective and successful campaign in the United States today to stop the electronic distribution of illegal pornography and child pornography. Former officer in the Oklahoma Civil Liberties Union About the Regular Features - America's Most Wanted - A list of public corporations that are the enemies of America's children and families because of their continued electronic distribution of illegal pornography and child pornography. (Your State Here)'s Most Wanted - A state by state list of ISPs that are the enemies of children and families because of their continued electronic distribution of illegal pornography and child pornography. Commentary - Incisive and hard hitting analysis of the legal and constitutional issues facing the Internet today. Battle Reports - Updates from the front lines, from "war correspondents" across the country- The court battles over the Communications Decency Amendment. The status of OCAF against the Oklahoma ISPs. The status of Loving v. Boren - is it a ridiculous waste of taxpayers money or will it be the definitive Internet court ruling? The status of other important electronic obscenity court cases. The status of battles yet to be engaged. Special Reports - Testimonies from the victims of pornography. Profiles of the men and women who are engaged in the battle to free our society from its plague. Interviews with law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and ISPs. You should subscribe to Level 30 if: You are an INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER who wants to stop violating federal and state obscenity and child pornography laws. You are a LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER or PROSECUTOR who wants to learn how to stop ISPs from violating federal and state obscenity and child pornography laws You are a PUBLIC OFFICIAL who wants to learn how to keep illegal pornography and child pornography off of publicly owned and operated computer systems. You are a UNIVERSITY OFFICIAL or LIBRARY OFFICIAL who wants to learn how to keep illegal pornography and child pornography off of your university or library computer system. You are a SCHOOL OFFICIAL or TEACHER who wants to learn how to keep illegal pornography and child pornography off of your school's computer system. You belong to a CHILD ADVOCACY or WOMEN's RIGHTS group and you want to learn how to fight illegal pornography and child pornography on the Internet. You belong to a CHURCH or RELIGIOUS GROUP and you want to learn how to fight illegal pornography and child pornography on the Internet. You are a CORPORATE EXECUTIVE or PR OFFICER who wants to learn how to avoid extremely damaging publicity for your company. You are a REPORTER who wants to stay one step ahead of the above. Or, finally....... You are a PARENT or GRANDPARENT who wants to learn more about how to keep the Internet safe for your children and/or grandchildren. Thank you for your time. --

2 1

Re: "Termination"?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:54 PM 6/17/96 -0400, s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote: > > >On Sat, 8 Jun 1996 ichudov(a)algebra.com wrote: > >> Since corrupt officials are likely to have more anonymous cash that >> phreedom phighters, guess who will win. Remember, Chudov was wrong about this. It's not just the amount of money you have, it's whether you can identify people as your "enemies." >> Also, think about this: lots of people have someone they'd like >> to assassinate but do not actually do it because of lack of anonymity >> and associated hassles (like dealing with assassins non-anonymously, >> abundance of traces, possible confession of the assassin and so on). >> With your assassination clearinghouse these hassles go away. I think it >> would present an excellent prospect for reducing the population. > >I could see an easy possibility for sting operations with the added >feature that you can have assassinated all the supected assassins (ie anybody >that may have come near whatever surveillance there may have been). >Why bother with courts and trials? > >I still think assassination politics is self-terminating. It would probably be more accurate to say that it is "self-limiting." There's a difference, you know. There may never be a "last" AP death. However, AP deaths may (and probably will) eventually become comparatively rare, precisely because they so straightforwardly obtained if there is a justification for them. That will cause the behavior of people to change, to avoid doing anything which draws the ire of somebody else. Think back to integral calculus, where the area under an infinitely long curve may be finite. If we think of X as being time, and the rate of deaths as the height of the curve above Y=0, the total number of deaths is reflected in the area. Some death rate schedules will integrate to a finite, limited number of deaths. Even if reality doesn't quite approach this optimum situation, it MAY approach a much better reality where the eventual rate of deaths is far lower than the status quo. However, the system will only self-limit to the extent that overt agression among people will be eliminated. If nobody agresses against you, you will have no reason to agress against anyone else. Therefore, the system cannot end in a dictatorship. >> Maybe *that* will help the whales and trees, because of the effect on demand. > >Don't you mean supply? Stores and physical companies are easier to target >than consumers. But the only remaining environmentalists or for that >matter any other people with strong views will be net-based pseudonyms. >Usenet flamewars, editorials and talk shows just don't seem dying for, imho. It is true that there may be a strong deterrent against "people with strong views." However, as I pointed out to the head of a 'Net freedom organization (who was worried about his future!), the only reason our society NEEDS figurehead people such as him is to change unpopular policies that are forced on the rest of us. Once AP begins operating, you don't have to stick your neck out to deter agression against you, and you don't need heads of organizations such as him, or for that matter organizations either. Quite simply, why do you need the head of the ACLU, or for that matter the ACLU as an organization, if you can target anybody who violates the rights that the ACLU currently protects? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

FREE OFFER
by Auto Truck Depot 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// If you would like to be removed from our mailing list, please reply to this message with "remove" as the subject and you will not receive any more email from our server. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////// FREE $20.00 GIFT CERTIFICATE Please visit our coupon page at http://www.stopgocal.com/atd/index.html 11/19/97

1 0

Re: From the Files - Freeh and Flight 800
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Marc Rotenberg wrote: > >FWIW, Kallstrom spent much of his time at the press >conference this week debunking the missle theory. >The FBI's explanation for why so many eyewitnesses >appeared to see a missile approach the plane boils >down to this: observers, alerted by the explosion, >were actually observing a wing falling away from >the plane. To amplify this a bit: the explanation also included the speculation of cascading fuel being ignited from the bottom and flaming upward, which could be interpreted by the observers as a missile rising. An interesting view which I wonder if any of our scientists here find credible. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall the CIA video showing upward flaming fuel, rather it showed a billowing explosion centered on the main fuel tank of the upturning fuselage (as the front cabin plummeted). Is it feasible that the fuel would ignite and flame upward that way or would it be too broadly dispersed by speed and the atmosphere to cause a coherent, shaped flame such as that of a missile tail? For example, would an adept pilot be able to tell the difference? This is posed because of the way several theories of the OKC blomb blast got it wrong due to overly narrow initial interpretation as did misinterpretations of other controversial "terrorisms." Perhaps Tim May is correct in his assessment of Jim, but NTSC's upcoming hearing should produce more reliable technical information than Kallstrom appears to be comfortable handling -- given his bent for melodrama fine details of investigation seem to be an annoyance, although he appeared to like the assurance of the CIA's virtual reality. Kallstrom also said that the case will remain open, I guess in case Boeing or TWA or something needs to be zapped by blind justice.

2 1

Re: I'm going to count to ten... etc
by wabe 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-- I have to say, I really enjoy your posts TruthMonger - as deranged as they are. So out of all of us, who's going to the steg conference this april? Also, is there a java version of crypto kong so I can use it in linux? And the solution to the speeding-ticket-giving camera is, of course, camo paint jobs. But you all knew that, right? --digsig EojdyErVslc/s6aQeIHwnOlMw3lUKJhdZc/ZeCNfe7H QbR0ngV/+ZI9uuiEe6o4CkfBhQowsHozF7TsZU5f 40HJxqCEceUgzeJFjTbRWSH9LJxdzYMLQbtwctBfM

2 1

Govt. key escrow justification
by Michael Wilson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm attaching the Nando and NYT pieces on the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. As feared yet expected, their effort is turning into another key escrow justification. Anyone who is interested, let me know, I've commented the PCCIP summary report (the full report is classified). I'm one of the few public strong- crypto supporters who also happens to be a professional in the field of infrastructural attacks, so this makes things even more lonely. Michael Wilson http://www.7pillars.com/ ________________________________________________________________________ U.S. cyberterrorism report hit on encryption stance ____________________________________________________________________________ Copyright ) 1997 Nando.net Copyright ) 1997 Reuters WASHINGTON (November 6, 1997 00:53 a.m. EST http://www.nando.net) - The U.S. commission on critical infrastructure drew strong criticism Wednesday for endorsing the Clinton administration's controversial policy that would require government access to all private computer data. Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, said significant questions had been raised about the costs and feasibility of so-called key recovery systems. "Until those significant questions are fully considered and answered, we should be cautious in adopting grand key recovery encryption schemes that may only exacerbate system vulnerabilities," Leahy said in a statement. The commission's report, delivered to President Clinton last month and later released to the public in declassified form, warned that critical telephone, power, water and financial systems were becoming increasingly vulnerable to computer attack. The commission also said it favored greater use of computer encryption programs, which use mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key." Encryption programs could be used to prevent hackers or terrorists from infiltrating computer networks that run critical infrastructure systems, for example. But the commission backed use of key recovery, a technology to allow law enforcement officials to decode any encrypted message covertly. "Key recovery is needed to provide business access to data when encryption keys are lost or maliciously misplaced, and court-authorized law enforcement access to the plain text of criminal related communications and data lawfully seized," the report said. FBI director Louis Freeh and other law enforcement officials back legislation to require all encryption products to include such features, but many high-tech companies, scientists, and civil libertarians oppose mandatory back-door access to coded information. The Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet advocacy group, noted that a recent report by cryptography experts found that key recovery features added numerous new vulnerabilities to computer systems. "Key recovery is inconsistent with the (commission's) own calls for greater security in our nation's critical infrastructures," the group said. Robert Marsh, who chaired the commission, defended the report to reporters after a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee's technology and terrorism subcommittee. Marsh contended the report took a balanced view of the encryption debate. "We didn't get into the encryption debate and all the nuances and individual decisions," he said. "We simply came on strong for encryption." In its formal recommendations, the commission urged the government to speed up pilot programs on key recovery, promote efforts to plan for implementing large-scale key recovery systems and encourage private-sector key recovery efforts. ___________________________________________________________________ November 6, 1997 Head of Cyber-Terrorism Panel Says Encryption Rules May Be Needed By JERI CLAUSING Bio WASHINGTON The head of a presidential commission on cyber-terrorism on Wednesday told a Senate panel that a mandatory system guaranteeing third-party access to scrambled computer communications may be necessary if industry does not embrace the Clinton administration's plan for a voluntary encryption decoding system. ________________________________________________________________ Robert T. Marsh, an aerospace consultant and retired Air Force general who is chairman of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, made the remarks in his first non-classified report on the commission's 15-month study and its recommendations for protecting the nation's computer networks from high-tech terrorism. The commission recommended a variety of proposals, including increased private-public partnership and information sharing, more comprehensive background checks on people who hold sensitive positions, strengthening of government computer systems and spending more on research to improve network security. But the key to national security, Marsh said, is strong encryption coupled with a back-door access for law enforcement officials to sensitive communications. "We want to see that adopted over all the critical control functions at an early date," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information. The commission's recommendation for a voluntary system that would give law enforcement officials the ability to decode electronic messages, called a key-recovery system, mirrors that of the administration, which says it wants ensure such officials can gain access to the coded communications of suspected criminals and terrorists. Encryption policy has been a volatile topic on Capitol Hill this year, where bills ranging from an industry-backed ban on key recovery to an FBI-supported mandatory key-recovery scheme have passed various House committees. The Clinton administration insists it supports a Senate bill establishing voluntary key recovery. "We didn't get into the encryption debate and all the nuances of individual positions," Marsh said. "We simply came on strong for encryption. We must have encryption." He told the panel that "we must lower the temperature of the encryption debate" long enough to complete pilot projects on key recovery that will prove to industry that such systems can work. Various agencies of the federal government currently are developing 13 key recovery pilot projects, which were on display Wednesday at a Government Information Technology Services conference. Marsh said the National Security Agency and the National Institutes for Standards and Technology should head efforts to perfect those systems and set standards for a national infrastructure protection office to carry out. Asked by the subcommittee's chairman, Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican, if those controls should be mandated, Marsh responded: "We think businessmen will find it in their best interest to incorporate these controls. ... Of course, in due time, that may be an option if they are not willing to accept them." Critics blasted the report as premature and contradictory. "I am concerned that the report's recommendations that large-scale key-recovery encryption systems which allow for surreptitious decryption by law enforcement be deployed for use by federal agencies and the private sector is premature," said Senator Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who has sponsored a bill to relax controls on encryption technology." "Significant questions have been raised by leading cryptographers about the security risks inherent in large-scale key recovery systems, which introduce new vulnerabilities and targets for attack, as well as about the costs and feasibility of implementing such systems." The Center for Democracy and Technology said the "increasing vulnerabilities," "increasing dependence on critical infrastructure," and "wide spectrum of threats" identified by the commission all provide powerful arguments against the deployment of the vastly complex and insecure systems for back-door access that key recovery requires. The center cited a recent study by 11 expert cryptographers and computer security experts, "The Risks of Key Recovery, Key Escrow, and Trusted Third Parties," which identifies numerous risks in the widespread deployment of such key-recovery plans. Among those risks is insider abuse, which Marsh said so far has been the chief culprit in computer-related crimes. Marsh said a separate section of the report makes "recommendations that try to equip us better to deal with the insider threat, that's a separate problem." ________________________________________________________________ Jeri Clausing at jeri(a)nytimes.com welcomes your comments and suggestions. ________________________________________________________________ Copyright 1997 The New York Times Company --- For those who want to track this issue further, the PCCIP is at http://www.pccip.gov/

2 1

Re: Protocols for Insurance to Maintain Privacy
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Two ways to tell if the person has had the test: A) The company performing the test keeps track of everyone who has had it. This could be by some biometric ID, perhaps even a DNA fingerprint. B) The company performing the test marks people who have had it. They could have a harmless radioactive tracer injected. This would degrade after a while but it could be used to see if the test had been taken within some time interval. Both of these require that all companies able to issue the test cooperate and that there is no black market source of testing.

2 1

No Subject
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.itd.nrl.navy.mil/ITD/5540/ieee/cipher/news-items/980713.LISTWATCH .html My online review of this list and others. Mary Ellen Zurko "We will be obliged to take action ourselves" -Gore on privacy

5 5

RE: Democracy... (fwd)
by Matthew James Gering 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Try pantheism. If one fundamentaly believes that god does not > exist, which clearly involves faith, then yes it is a religion. Then I guess you could say that pantheism is an atheist religion, as opposed to a theist religion. My nice definition of atheism is reason over faith, science over mysticism, basically an anti-religion. While that may be etymologically unjustified, it does accurately reflect the views of the majority of people I know who call themselves atheist, myself included. Notice my brackets: a- (without) + [theos (god) + ismos (practice or doctrine)] not [a- (without) + theos (god)] + ismos (practice or doctrine) > By your view an agnostic can't be religion No, and it's not, it's like standing in the doorway of a religion, not sure whether to enter or leave, perhaps practicing but not believing. Such indecisiveness annoys me, but it accounts for the majority of the population. Matt

1 0