- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Nov. 22 bonus column - Year 2000
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Resent-Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 00:29:09 -0700 Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 23:28:33 -0800 (PST) X-Sender: vin(a)dali.lvrj.com Mime-Version: 1.0 To: vinsends(a)ezlink.com From: Vin_Suprynowicz(a)lvrj.com (Vin Suprynowicz) Subject: Nov. 22 bonus column - Year 2000 Resent-From: vinsends(a)ezlink.com X-Mailing-List: <vinsends(a)ezlink.com> archive/latest/596 X-Loop: vinsends(a)ezlink.com Precedence: list Resent-Sender: vinsends-request(a)ezlink.com FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA DUE TO LENGTH, PLEASE CONSIDER THIS YOUR BONUS ESSAY FOR NOVEMBER FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED NOV. 22, 1998 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz I don't know nothin' 'bout no Y2K OK, I admit it: I've been ducking the "Y2K" question. It's the most frequent inquiry I get, these days. And last weekend, while participating in an electronic chat room organized by the Liberty Roundtable, I had the questions come up several more times: "What do you see happening in the Y2K crisis? To what part of the country should we move to be safest?" For those who have been in a cave, "Y2K" is shorthand for the problem that develops because -- computer memory having been at a premium -- the programmers who set up many of our mainframe computers back in the 1970s and '80s created only a two-digit field for "year." Now -- starting April 1, 1999, if not sooner -- operators are going to try to program the computers that monitor our utility grids and phone systems, the factory machinery that generates "just-on-time delivery" of goods, even our railroad and airport switching equipment, giving those machines their instructions for the first quarter of the year "00." But (pardon my anthropomorphing) many of those computers will "assume" the year 00 happened 99 years ago. Anecdotes are already circulating about mortgage holders being billed for 99 years of delinquent interest, or supermarket debit machines rejecting as "expired" brand new debit cards which carry expiration dates ending in "00" or "01. " So far, opinion among thoughtful people has been split on the likely repercussions. Some perfectly wise folks argue that our economy and technology are the most innovative and resourceful ever devised. Even if your bank's ATMs go on the fritz for a couple of days, even if the railroad switching equipment bogs down and produce deliveries to your supermarket grow spotty for a few weeks, armies of well-paid technicians will hurl themselves into developing "work-arounds." To this way of thinking, survivalists who foresee the collapse of large segments of our urban culture, putting a premium on ownership of a cow and a well and a garden for the first time in 50 years, are merely engaging in wishful thinking. Generally a bunch of Bible-thumpers (as this line of thought goes), they would find it mighty handy for some kind of cosmic rain of brimstone to wipe away the urban Sodom and Gomorrah they view as the cause of all their problems, proliferating as that urban culture does the legions of the socialists, the welfare queens, the abortionists, the enviro bug-worshippers, the gun-grabbers. How fitting and handy to envision them all killing each other off, fighting over the last moldy crust of bread. And, if the Y2K "crisis" were about to occur in perfect isolation, that argument would hold some water (even if this revelation of a nation divided into urban-versus-rural, East-versus-West, gun-lover versus gun-hater, would be worth some further study, all by itself.) But remember, Y2K is "shorthand." And as it turns out, it stands for a lot more than just "Year 2000." The problem is that -- not exactly simultaneously, but all within the next couple of years -- a few other problems are likely to crop up. Without predicting a specific order: # # # 1) The fractional reserve banking system that dates back to the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1912-13 is in deep crisis. Buoyed by the supposed guarantee that the International Monetary Fund (our long-suffering friends, the U.S. taxpayers) would bail out any failures, our "private" bankers (and those of Japan) have been recording trumped-up double-digit returns by loaning billions to such bankrupt chicken farms as Malaysia, Indonesia, Russia, Brazil, and Mexico. These loans are no good. And they are pyramided and leveraged atop one another like something out of Dr. Seuss. In this country, too, the pursuit of ever-higher returns and the presumption that everyone can live the good life on credit have encouraged foolish loans and investments based on the notion that the federal government "insures all deposits," and that we can always pay off our debts with that raise we hope to get next year. Once these assumptions start to unravel, the only debate will be whether to describe the fallout with references to "dominoes," or that old favorite, the "house of cards." Remember, as Jimmy Stewart explains to his depositors every year in "It's a Wonderful Life," the current system is based on the assumption (are you noticing that word crop up a lot?) that only a small percentage of depositors will ever want to take all their money out at the same time. Otherwise, the banks would be, well, bankrupt. This kind of fraud is only legal because the government specifically licenses people to do it, on the theory that it "creates more credit, to promote economic growth." 2) Then comes that old stalwart, the New York Stock Exchange. Prices there have been many times what can be justified by traditional price-to-earning ratios for years. That sounds arcane, but what it means is that few investors are buying stocks these days because they've always wanted to own a piece of Hammermill or Coca-Cola, and look forward to reading the annual reports and living off the dividends in their golden years. Dividends? Mere pennies! Folks buy these stocks today because the guy who's selling them made an 18 to 21 percent return in 1997, and the buyer hopes to realize 18 to 21 percent when he sells them in the year 2000. When the holder of a mutual fund can no longer even tell you what products or services are offered by the underlying firms that issued the stocks in his or her "portfolio," what you have is a "bubble." Think tulip bulbs, Everglades building lots, Cabbage Patch dolls, baseball cards, beanie babies. # # # 3) Today's dollar is intrinsically worthless. First it was made of gold; then it said "pay to the bearer in gold;" then silver, now it's a certificate redeemable for exactly nothing. Dollar-denominated Treasury bonds are also intrinsically worthless. They are merely a promise to tax our children or grandchildren to pay us back in still more paper -- Libertarians call them "extortion futures." Bill Clinton is one of the luckiest men in history ... so far. Most rational (non-Keynesian) economic models would predict that -- at the rate at which the United States has been printing and passing worthless green paper for the past 30 years -- we should be in the midst of a hyperinflation that would make the Weimar Republic look boring. But the funniest thing happened: All over the world, people love and respect America as the font of freedom, and figure the dollar must really be worth something -- certainly more than their worthless domestic ruble or zlotny. So they hide dollars in their mattresses. Those dollars don't come back to these shores to bid up the price of American goods. So we're fine ... so far. But there's a reason why the guys who get arrested by your local bunko squad are called "con artists." Their stock in trade is "confidence." Remember Y2K? Imagine now that the ATM machines stop working. Since the nation's major railroad switching yards are now entirely computerized -- the old manual switches were torn out years ago -- the grocery store runs out of fresh produce. Some computer messes up at the sewage treatment plant, and before they can figure out a manual override some sewage backs up into the reservoir. Suddenly you're warned to boil your cooking water, like some barefoot Third World peasant. Without explanation, the phones go dead. Long lines form as folks start panic-buying remaining supplies of gasoline, kerosene lanterns, and canned goods -- price no object. There are a few fistfights over the last rolls of toilet paper. Pressed by jealous mobs to "do something," blustering politicians declare that anyone who stores too much stuff is a "hoarder." Neighbors are encouraged to turn in neighbors -- offered a reward from the seized goods when they're "redistributed." Every electronic alarm in the city goes off all at once, leaving police and fireman scurrying around, clueless. Some looting starts -- after all, it's the "hoarders" who are the real criminals, right? TV pictures of all this go out overseas, until the broadcasts are limited "to prevent panic." What has just been lost? "Confidence." Now folks want to draw out their bank accounts in cash. They want to sell their stocks ... but how can everyone sell when the prices are falling so quickly that there are no buyers, and the phone lines to your broker are tied up for days on end? 4) There is no "Social Security Trust Fund." The thief you keep sending back to Congress helped them spend it all. Already, the retirement age is being raised, and there's serious talk of "means testing" payments -- only making full payments to the drunks and losers and compulsive gamblers who accrued no other savings or assets. Kind of like taxing all the industrious little ants, but only paying off the lazy grasshoppers. Sound like a "guaranteed annuity" to you? Assurances of ongoing "Trust Fund" solvency are based on the optimistic assumption (there's that word again) that Social Security payments by younger workers will continue at current levels. But what if there's a recession, with big layoffs? What if the computers at the IRS are rumored to be down as of late 1999? What if lots of people decide to just stop filing and paying federal taxes in early Year 2000, on the theory, "They're off line, anyway. If we ALL stop, they can't come find ALL of us"? (This would never have happened in the 1950s, of course, when American taxpayers -- generally paying less than 5 percent of gross income so you could still support a family on one salary -- considered it "our" government and were proud to do their patriotic duty at tax time. But since then the liars have brought us Vietnam, Watergate, Chinagate, Filegate, Ruby Ridge, and Waco ... IRS auditors and drug police routinely referring to average Americans as "scum" and gleefully seizing our homes, businesses and bank accounts, tens of thousands of young people jailed for marijuana despite popular votes to legalize the stuff, defendants railroaded by smug federal politician-judges without even being allowed to read the Bill of Rights to their juries. Still consider it your "patriotic duty" to feed this beast with half of what you earn? Or did you think your pal the congressman was suddenly, desperately searching for "an alternative to the IRS" just out of the goodness of his heart?) And what happens now to the carefully-drawn charts that show Social Security is "sound until the year 2012"? # # # Irresponsible speculation? If so, I'm not alone. Appearing in Las Vegas on Tuesday, Nov. 17, U.S. Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, chairman of a Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, said turn-of-the-century computer glitches could cause "an economic downturn" in the United States and abroad. "Potentially, this could tie up huge parts of the economy," Sen. Bennett told John G. Edwards of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, after a private meeting with executives at the Comdex computer trade show. "There will be a problem. There is no question that we can't fix everything that needs to be fixed (over the next 14 months)." Sen. Bennett told the newspaper he believes less developed countries in Asia, Africa and South America will be most affected by Y2K problems, though they're reportedly "working hard" to resolve the computer glitches. "My current assumption is that the United States will overcome this without overwhelming, crippling problems," the senator proclaimed. Then he said he is also concerned about how the millennium bug will affect the health care industry. "I wouldn't want to get sick in some rural hospital," the senator said, cheerily. Meantime, the Sacramento Bee reported (also on Nov. 17) results of an August poll that shows most California cities and counties have a plan to eradicate the year 2000 bug ... "but less than half have set aside the money to pay for it." Feeling reassured? Into this potential maelstrom, toss three wild cards: 1) If Americans, hypothetically told at some future date that stocks and bonds have fallen to one-third of their previous nominal values, could be counted on to behave like sophisticated, diversified investors, saying "Oh well, you win some, you lose some," then the market could indeed fall by two thirds without causing a meltdown. But the behavior of large groups of people, once they start moving, is rarely so rational. Would you want to be the last one on your block to cry "Sell"? When a market crashes, folks lose their jobs. What happens then to folks who have no hard savings or supplies but plenty of debt ... who have barely been keeping their heads above water? What liberties -- yours as well as theirs -- would they then gladly trade for a steady supply of hot porridge? 2) The kind of people who gravitate to government "service" never voluntarily accept blame, but they (start ital)are(end ital) always looking for ways to expand their power. Can you spot any aspects of these "Y2K" scenarios that might give government agencies an excuse to seize more power; to further restrict our freedoms under the guise of "offering relief and restoring order"; and then to blame the whole situation on someone else. "Greedy capitalists," perhaps, who have been operating with "too little regulation"? 3) We will be increasingly reassured that "the best minds" are hard at work re-writing computer code to prevent any of this from happening. But computer nerds and denizens of the Internet are, in my experience, the most free-thinking, libertarian ... even anarchist residents of our little global village. They are immensely confident in their self-sufficiency. And they do not like Big Brother -- especially when he threatens to mess with their privacy and freedom. So ... what if a few of them are only (start ital)pretending(end ital) to fix the problem? It may take a village to raise a socialist, but it wouldn't take many Y2K saboteurs to seize this opportunity to "topple the state." # # # A long way around to a relatively short answer: No, I'm not a professional financial advisor. But yes, I know exactly what is going to happen. Everything listed above is going to happen. I just don't know (start ital)when(end ital) each thing is going to happen, or in what particular order -- which is what you really need to know, if you think about it. But since there's no real penalty for being "too prepared" -- other than perhaps looking a bit foolish -- I will fearlessly give a little (absolutely amateur) advice, which should apply in the face of almost (start ital)any(end ital) unforeseen emergency. (And if you start preparing yourself for the smaller emergencies now, at least you'll be part-way home.) Pay down your debts. Turn a hobby into a second, part-time business ... a small but separate income stream. Diversify. Owning a bunch of "funds" with different names, which are in fact all dollar-denominated electronic blips at some government-regulated bank or brokerage house, is not sufficient. Do you own any bullion-value gold coins (not coins with grossly-inflated "collector value," but coins priced at no more than twice their meltdown worth)? Have you hidden away any bags of "junk silver" (pre-1965 real silver dimes and quarters, now selling at about four times face value)? Do you have a supply of greenbacks somewhere other than "in the ATM?" Enough to live on for a week? A month? Rich folks can look into Swiss annuities. But even those of moderate means can think about a beat-up looking American pickup truck ... with enough dough left over to stockpile an extra water pump, an extra fuel pump, extra tires and wheels, an extra battery ... and some wrenches, you yo-yo. Don't panic. Don't sell everything and move somewhere to become an unemployed stranger ... unless you really have the assets, the manpower, and the handyman skills to set yourself up right. Do consider whether you could dig a well (or drink out of the creek) and plant a vegetable garden where you live, should things get tough for a time. If not, do you have friends or relatives within driving distance, where such things are possible? Would they take you in if you arrived as an unwashed beggar? For how long? But what if you were to contact them now, asking permission to store some supplies there, and even to help finance their plans to fix up a room in the loft, to till and fence a bigger garden, or to share the costs and ownership of a four-wheel-drive vehicle? What then? Do you have water and non-perishable food stored to get you through a week? A month? (Freeze-dried gourmet camper's fare is fine for the well-heeled, as are surplus Army MREs. But bulk rice, oats, and dried peas in plastic tubs are surprisingly cheap, if you shop around.) More than a week's supply of toilet paper, soap, and other hygiene products? Pet food? The doctors and insurance companies don't want you to stockpile the prescription medicines you legitimately need, do they? How hard have you worked at outsmarting them? As a last resort, think "veterinarian." Do you have alternative ways to heat and light your home, if the power were to go down? (Residents of blizzard country will actually have a head start, here.) If not, is that because you look forward to someday living in a "government resettlement camp"? Could you protect your family and belongings from home invaders, if the police could not be reached? Would your neighbors help? Would you help (start ital)them(end ital)? Do you even know their names? Do you own any firearms? Are they listed on government pre-confiscation lists? Why? Do you know why shotguns and handguns are generally better home-defense weapons than rifles? Do you know with what types of bullets or shells it's best to load such weapons for home defense? Got any? Why not? Afraid that once you start to learn new stuff it might become a habit? Dying during a crisis is not the worst thing that can happen to you. I imagine that watching the suffering of those who counted on you to protect them can be much worse. Vin Suprynowicz is the assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Readers may contact him via e-mail at vin(a)lvrj.com. The web sites for the Suprynowicz column are at http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vinyard.htm, and http://www.nguworld.com/vindex. The column is syndicated in the United States and Canada via Mountain Media Syndications, P.O. Box 4422, Las Vegas Nev. 89127. *** Vin Suprynowicz, vin(a)lvrj.com The evils of tyranny are rarely seen but by him who resists it. -- John Hay, 1872 The most difficult struggle of all is the one within ourselves. Let us not get accustomed and adjusted to these conditions. The one who adjusts ceases to discriminate between good and evil. He becomes a slave in body and soul. Whatever may happen to you, remember always: Don't adjust! Revolt against the reality! -- Mordechai Anielewicz, Warsaw, 1943 * * * --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

CJ Update Corrected
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This is attorney protected information. Received today by e-mail: November 16, 1998 Springfield, Missouri To: friends of Carl Johnson, The Last Canadian Outlaw (name of his last album) From: Alia Johnson I saw CJ today at the Springfield facility for the criminally disturbing. We spent five hours, a lot of laughing, a little crying, and talking, with lots of cameras and mikes on us. The controllers would not let me take notes! First, CJ's great hope and request to his friends is to hang in there with him. He intends to go all the way with this to trial, being his own defense lawyer, even though he believes that since the Feds know they will lose, they will try to get him to plea bargain down to "walking his dog without a leash" as he puts it. He is definitely on a mission. He received John's package, nothing from Declan. He has received about half the mail I sent him. They are reading his mail to his lawyers, supposedly forbidden. CJ has been without glasses and without his teeth for the whole time since he was arrested. JEFF GORDON STILL HAS CJ'S TEETH. However, his vision has improved! He is also without proper medication for his Tourette's. The shrink told him that the amphetamines he had been prescribed and which were working well would probably be stolen by the staff anyway. CJ is very conscious of managing his neurological condition, with coffee, sugar, fasting, and self-control. He does complain that he was so pleased with himself that he got through his last rage attack without hurting himself or acting it out that he punched a wall in celebration and hurt his hand! Even though he is supposed to be his own lawyer, he has not even been informed about his indictment nor has he been informed about anything else about his case. At Springfield he has been in lockup for things that he purportedly did at the Florence, Arizona prison. The shrink gets a message this past weekend that suddenly I am coming down, and this morning before I get there he rushes in to tell CJ he's finally moving him out of lockup into the open ward! Wolfson later tells me that over two weeks ago he notified the federal marshalls that CJ can be moved back to Arizona, but he had not told CJ that. I don't know whether it's true. He actually took me to task for coming on such short notice. CJ was very happy that the things he has sent out have been posted, and it is clear that the support of the cypherpunks community is important to him. He did not talk to me about particular defense strategies for obvious reasons. He did indicate that the story that I relayed to John about the incident in the federal courthouse in Estevan involving a supposed gasoline "bomb" (a version of which incident was part of a story by Declan) was a surprise to him; he seemed both surprised and amused about what actions had been attributed to him. To say I know and understand nothing about this incident is an understatement. I mention it only because it is part of Jeff Gordon's original complaint, a significant part I assume since CJ has never been known to do physical injury to a human being. CJ has not seen the stories by Declan nor what has been posted; I sent a hundred pages of stuff to Larry Dowling his Austin lawyer, including copies of Declan's articles. I had not sent these things to CJ on the assumption that they would be censored. CJ suggested that I ask Dowling to sent them with the instruction on the envelope "open in the presence of the inmate only". Again, he wants to see these things because his spirit is hanging on the support from John and the rest of the community, although he said very clearly that he is doing this on his own and would do it alone if he had to. Just before I left to come here, having finally been cleared as a visitor, I got a call from Linda Lou Reed, saying that she had not done a couple of things needed to get his music CD together, since she has been out of town. CJ and I talked about how to get this together and I will work on it with other Tucson friends. Someone had the idea of selling the CD's to support a legal defense fund. I will report progress as it occurs. And speaking of legal defense support, thanks to John and others who made suggestions about legal support. After many hours of discussion the family decided that it was not the most intelligent thing to put up the meagre family fortunes against the federal government, and therefore we intend at this point to trust CJ's defense to his stated (and historically effective) plan to be his own defense, or to public defenders. With some trepidation I brought this up to CJ, and he was relieved; he said that he had been worried that we would try to pay for a defense in this case, which again he intends to push all the way through no matter what compromises are offered to him, and that our paying for his defense was not what he wanted. Therefore I would like to put out to those who know the situation to help CJ to obtain relevant legal information and consultation as he goes into this, in whatever form it is available. If there are costs that I personally can afford to support, I am happy to. CJ has made repeated requests for access to legal books at Springfield, and they disappear into nowhere, no yes, no no. An interesting point: CJ related that Dr. Wolfson had asked him about his filing of IRS tax forms! As if they were on a fishing expedition looking for other things to get CJ on, as they did with Jim Bell. I confronted Wolfson about this, asking how it was relevant to the issue Wolfson was supposed to be investigating, which is CJ's competence to understand the charges against him and to stand trial. At that exact moment he jumped up and said that he urgently needed to answer a page which he had received five minutes before. I overheard the conversation which he had suddenly urgently to engage in, and it was a trivial conversation about returning a copy of a document to someone. But when he returned to me he said "Well I have three reasons for having asked that." Already suspicious, to have three reasons. The main reason Wolfson said was that CJ says he has attention deficient disorder (ADD) associated with the Tourette's, and that asking if someone filed taxes was a good indicator of their attention span! (Could I be making this up?) I said, why not pick something like, can you make it through the college registration process? He replied, "I'm not used to working with educated people." Other "reasons" he gave: 1) I want to give a thorough medical, psychological, social and legal picture as part of my judgment whether someone is capable of understanding the charges against him, because if I leave significant things out of my report I am more likely to be receiving a subpoena to wherever CJ is being tried, and that's inconvenient for me; and 2) there are all these wacko people who question the authority of government to levy taxes, put people to trial, etc., and I need to determine whether he's one of those and therefore suffering as part of a mass delusion (his words)... he lost me there a little bit. I didn't know whether that would be evidence of sanity or insanity. Anyway he seems to be sending off CJ into the next stage with a report that CJ might have Tourette's, is not schizophrenic, and in his experience is not dangerous. CJ does have some mighty interesting observations about how things are done in this federal nuthouse situation, which god willing we will all get to hear someday. Meanwhile he has sent out certain information to Declan on specific incidents in the facility which he observed, but is concerned that it was not received. Our expectation is that CJ will be returned to Tucson and then extradited to Washington, but clearly as a form of harrassment the marshalls are taking their own sweet time about everything. CJ's "case manager" at Springfeld is Bob Harris. The phone number there is 417 862 7041, and CJ's prisoner number is 05987-196. Any correspondence to anywhere in the prison system needs to have that number on it. John Bogart in Tucson (520 624 8196) is the public defender in CJ's local case, pending his extradition to Washington state. The family retained Larry Dowling in Austin, a very old friend of CJ's and his lawyer for a long time, for a small amount to look after CJ's rights during incarceration; we have not retained him to go the full way in this defense, for the reasons stated above. Supposedly John Bogart will be informed when the marshalls actually choose to move CJ (after the fact). Therefore I suggest that those who want to write to CJ write him soon and by fast mail at U.S. Medical Center, POB Box 4000, Springfield, Missouri 65801. Larry Dowling's address is 606 West 11th, Austin, 78701. I assume he might be willing to forward it to CJ on the assumption that CJ will in fact be moved. Larry has been a true friend throughout this and past tribulations. CJ has said that since he has been incarcerated for three months now with no indication to him as to formal charges, it is time to act to get him out of Springfield. I concur, and unless I hear within a week that he is being moved, I will take some of the cypherpunk friends up on their offer to begin to address this case through the local ACLU. CJ's greatest fear is that he will do something that will justify involuntary drug administration, and he will be defeated in that way. He is also afraid that he will simply be killed in prison. However, all in all I found CJ in pretty good spirits, and clearly feeling "on purpose" vis a vis his goals with his cypherpunk activities. I related to him during our talk that one of my sons just took some time off from university so that he would have time to actually read, and that he had accurately predicted to his friends exactly how I would respond to the news: "Honey, I'm so proud!" CJ said that's how I seemed to feel now about his arrest. It is, finally. I trust that CJ, in spite of a pattern of sometimes shooting himself in the foot, is brilliantly inspired by important libertarian values and goals. I appreciate the education and inspiration I have gained from getting to know this side of his life and some of the people, technologies, issues and ideas of which previously I had only vague notions. Alia Johnson (lodi(a)well.com) my phone 510 548 2008; my fax 510 848 7842.

1 0

STUFFED NOW HAS LINKS TO 100S MORE PHOTOS!
by STUFFED THU NOV 19 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CHECK OUT ALL THE NEW STUFF IN STUFFED! + BIG PUSSY HEAVEN + GOOEY GONADS + ORAL XXX + FREE PORN 4 ALL + EABO'S EBONY ECSTACY + XXX SOFTLY + MAD MAX'S ULTIMATE BABES + ASIAN SLUTS + INTO THE NIGHT + NICE BUTTS + MUCH, MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <---- This email is never sent unsolicited. Stuffed is the supplement for the Eureka newsletter you subscribed to. Full instructions on unsubscribing are in every issue of Eureka! ----> http://stuffed.net/home/ <----

1 0

National Security KRA Framework
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

These are excerpts from US Patent 5835596: "International cryptography framework" issued on November 10, 1998, to inventors Keith S. Klemba, Santa Clara, CA, and Roger Merckling, Gieres, France and assigned to Hewlett Packard. Source: http://www.patents.ibm.com/patlist?icnt=US&patent_number=05835596&x=19&y=4 It's an update of US Patent 5651068 issued for the same methodology in July, 1997. Summaries of the patents are also available at < http://www.uspto.gov >. INTERNATIONAL CRYPTOGRAPHY FRAMEWORK SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention provides a four-part technology framework that supports international cryptography, which includes a national flag card, a cryptographic unit, a host system, and a network security server. Three of the four service elements have a fundamentally hierarchical relationship. The National Flag Card (NFC) is installed in the Cryptographic Unit (CU) which, in turn, is installed into a Host System (HS). Cryptographic instructions on the Host system cannot be executed without a Cryptographic Unit, which itself requires the present of a valid National Flag Card before its services are available. The fourth service element, a Network Security Server (NSS), can provide a range of different security services including verification of the other three service elements. The framework supports the design, implementation, and operational elements of any and all national policies, while unifying the design, development, and operation of independent national security policies. The invention thus gives standard form to the service elements of national security policies, where such service elements include such things as hardware from factors, communication protocols, and on-line and off-line data definitions. [Snip drawing and detailed descriptions.] APPLICATION OF THE FRAMEWORK The invention has various applications. In particular, the framework is ideally suited for various national security schemes and operates consistently across a variety of local laws. For example the framework could be used to support a key escrow policy. Key escrowing is a process where the keys or family keys used for cryptography are kept by a third party, in the national context, typically a government agency. This allows the third party to decrypt information when, for example, a law enforcement agency is required to see the contents of an encrypted message. For example if the policy of nation-X requires key escrow, then when nation-X NFC's are put into circulation they contain a key escrowed by nation-X. Law enforcement would be able to use the electronic stamp on a message to determine that the message was encrypted under the policy of nation-X. It would also be able to determine unique identification information of the specific NFC used to enable the CU. If nation-X agrees to cooperate, the escrowed key for the NFC involved may be obtained to decrypt the suspicious message. The actual encryption algorithm used in nation-X may be the same encryption algorithm that is used in nation-Z, such that when a user from nation-X visits nation-Z it is only necessary to put a NFC from nation-Z into the CU. The encryption algorithm in the CU remains the same, but what is governing the use of cryptography is the policy of nation- Z. For example, the policy of nation-Z may require a trap door, such that the government of nation-Z is able to take a back door into the users system to read the deciphered text. In this case the nation-Z NFC provides a back door rather than an escrowed key to law enforcement. Several such schemes are known in the art and it is a feature of the invention that the framework is readily adapted to accommodate such schemes as may be implemented in a particular national policy without affecting the basic hardware, or data structures of a user system, with the exception of the NFC. Thus, the encryption algorithms in CU may be the same encryption algorithms used everywhere. The NFCs control the use of these encryption algorithms in accordance with the local law. Because the NSS is a trusted third party that validates proper local use of the framework, it is not possible to use cryptography unless a locally accepted NFC is installed in the CU. In the example above, even though the encryption engine operates properly in nation-X, it would not operate in nation-Z unless the NFC was replaced with a nation-Z's NFC. For international communication of encrypted information, (e.g. where an encrypted message is generated in nation-Z and sent to nation-X) the involvement of cryptography for such messages will be independently controlled by two NFCs -- the X flag card in nation-X and the Z-flag card in nation-Z. The invention therefore offers the ability to support government policy, whatever that policy may be, and still provide uniform cryptographic services. In addition to the nationalization issues that are illustrated above, within a certain nation there may be multiple encryption policies (e.g. nation-X might have a policy for banking that is more liberal than its policy for manufacturing). Accordingly, the framework is adapted to operate within each country under several different national policies, or with several different levels of encryption. For example, just as there are different stamps for first class and priority mail, the framework may allow for different levels of encryption based on the type of NFC installed. It is a feature of the framework that CUs may have the major standard encryption algorithms built-in (e.g. DES, RSA, DSS, MD5). However, it is also possible to install custom algorithms into the CU providing that the policy in the governing NFC permits this type of activity. Software algorithms can be transferred completely or partially into the CU from either the NFC or the NSS. Hardware algorithms can be added to the CU via the NFC. The actual encryption of a message may involve the NFC, CU, or NSS, or any combination thereof. As soon as the NFC is removed from the CU these custom algorithms are no longer operative, perhaps not even present, in the CU. [End excerpts]

1 0

Re: FC: More on Network Associates and its crypto-politics
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Declan McCullagh writes: >TIS supports export controls on encryption products. My article: > http://www.well.com/user/declan/pubs/cwd.shadow.cryptocrats.0298.txt Two problems here. First, you are using the present tense in saying that TIS "supports" export controls, but your article is from nine months ago. There have been many changes since then, including loosening of the crypto export rules, the acquisition of TIS by Network Associates, and a recent statement that TIS has backed off from its leadership role in advocating key recovery. What is TIS's current policy? It certainly sounds like it is changing. You should find out before claiming to know what it is. Second, even in the context of last February, what you wrote is: > Some of the firms selected also endorse restrictions. Trusted Information > Systems recently circulated a policy paper calling for "sensible" > legislation to "make the export of 56-bit current interim DES controls > permanent and permit the export of stronger encryption when it is combined > with a key recovery system." (Which, coincidentally, TIS is happy to sell > you...) At the time, this would have represented a LIBERALIZATION of export laws. 56 bit exports were only allowed in the context of a promise to add key recovery even for 56 bit keys. The statement you have quoted calls for allowing 56 bit key export permanently, and only requiring key recovery for stronger encryption. True, it was not a call for full elimination of restrictions, but it was a step in the right direction. You are falling into the tiresome pattern of extremists who claim that moderates are lackeys for the other side. It's like an anti-abortion fanatic who says that those who oppose murdering abortion doctors are baby killers. Try reporting the facts instead of altering them to fit your biased views.

2 1

y2k+weapons
by Vladimir Z. Nuri 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

finally a good analysis of the weaponry situation.. surprised it has taken this long for anyone to write something like this. hopefully most weaponry systems will have failsafe mechanisms that prevent them from being shot off. in other words, they will malfunction, they will not work or be launchable.. worst case scenario of course is that they launch..!! the analogy is sort of like with stop lights. how horribly will they fail? for example stop lights could fail and just blink in all 4 directions, or they could be green in all 4 directions.. both are a failure, but the latter is more like a "catastrophic" failure.. with weapons, inoperability is a failure, launching is a catastrophic failure. ------- Forwarded Message Delivered-To: pswann(a)easynet.co.uk From: Carolyn Langdon <forumpub(a)stlc.com> Subject: Y2K and Nuclear Weapons Command Date: Wed, 9 Dec 1998 16:25:51 -0500 Organization: St Lawrence Centre for the Arts Encoding: 119 TEXT Science for Peace Media Release For immediate release - December 1998 Y2K and Nuclear Weapons Command and Control Systems Toronto - There are over 35,000 nuclear weapons remaining in the world today. These arsenals contain the destructive power of 650,000 Hiroshima bombs. Thousands of these weapons, mostly land-based ballistic missiles and submarine launched missiles are in a state of ready deployment. That is their warheads, which contain the nuclear fissile material, are attached to their delivery systems. Computers have become increasingly central to nuclear operations but they have not been without their glitches and serious flaws. During the Cold War computer malfunctions produced several serious false alarms of missile attacks, and during the Gulf War computer malfunctions contributed to the failings of the Patriot anti-missile system. "Both Russia and the U.S. are believed to have a "launch on warning" policy, so that a retaliatory launch is made after an adversary's missile is detected, and before the warhead impacts. Thus a single accidental or unauthorized launch could result in wholesale nuclear war." says Dr. Alan Phillips of Science for Peace. "When you factor in the Y2K computer problem an already dangerous situation becomes untenable", says Calvin Gotlieb from Science for Peace. "A Y2K meltdown in the nuclear systems of any one of the nuclear countries - the U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain, India, Pakistan and Israel (an undeclared nuclear state) would spell disaster." Dr. Barbara Simons, President of the Association for Computing Machinery states, "I am not going to worry about whether or not my VCR might become confused on 1/1/00. The worst case scenario is not especially bad. I am, however, going to worry about whether or not a computer that controls a major weapons system becomes confused on 1/1/00." Research findings by a number of different agencies and experts, both inside and outside the U.S. Dept. of Defense (DOD), show "no confidence" in the Pentagon's present program to meet the Year 2000 challenge. The DOD weapons systems utilize millions of 'embedded systems' in the form of microchips and microprocessors. U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre has admitted that, "everything is so interconnected, it's very hard to know with any precision that we've got it fixed." This was the U.S. state of affairs after 2 billion dollars had been spent trying to fix it. There is little information coming out of Russia about their progress with Y2K problems, but we can safely surmise that all can't be well given their diminished resources. David Parnas, the NSERC/Bell Industrial Research Chair in Software Engineering at McMaster University is concerned about the risks posed by the Y2K computer problem and nuclear systems. He says that, "The US military establishment is heavily dependent on computers for communication, intelligence and for control of weapons. Computer programs are very complex constructions. When a problem is discovered it often takes weeks to fix. Often the "fixed" program is still not right and requires further repair after the revised program is put into service. Sometimes, programs that are not date sensitive exchange dates with programs that are and will fail when those 'partner' programs fail." The Fail Safe Solution: All nuclear weapons states need to disconnect their nuclear warheads from their delivery systems to eliminate the risk of nuclear war by miscalculation, accident, or the Y2K problem. With proper planning and sufficient lead-time, it is technically feasible. In 1991, in the wake of the coup attempt in the Soviet Union, Presidents Bush and Gorbachev took thousands of nuclear weapons off deployment in a short period of time. The most difficult problem will be providing safe storage for the thousands of warheads from land-based missiles. In view of the risks involved in leaving weapons on ready alert, this difficulty can be easily overcome if governments start planning now. We need to hear from NATO, the U.N. and Congress that a multilateral approach to the Y2K problem is being coordinated. To date there has been near silence. Time is running out for a coordinated approach. Similar views to those of Science for Peace are held by individual computer scientists and nuclear physicists, organizations like the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and the British American Security Information Council, both based in the U.S., and Physicians for Global Responsibility among others. - - - 30 - For more information please contact: Science for Peace Board members: Dr. Alan Phillips, Science for Peace & Physicians for Global Survival, 905-385-0353 Calvin Gotlieb, Professor Emeritus, Dept of Computer Science, U of T T. 416-978-2986 or 416-482-4509 David Parnas, P.Eng., NSERC/Bell Industrial Research Chair in Software Engineering, Dept. of Computing and Software, Faculty of Engineering at McMaster University 905-525-9140x27353 or 905-648-5772 Other: Barbara Simons, President of the Association for Computing Machinery (simons(a)acm.org) Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (U.S.) 301-270-5500 For further information on the Y2K issue and other related nuclear issues see the Science for Peace website at: www.math.yorku.ca/sfp/ Science for Peace is located at University College, 15 King's College Circle, University of Toronto M5S 3H7 Canada. Tel. 416-978-3606.

1 0

Strike may have had small impact...
by Kevlar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think the impact of the strike on December 14 against the Wassenaar Arrangement has been greatly under-estimated. Even though I can only comfirm a handfull of brave souls may have supported the cause, the discussion about it was enough to raise awareness. And wasn't that the point? I submit this as proof for your aproval: (Orinigal story quoted directly from: http://www.zdnet.com/icom/e-business/1998/12/wassenaar/index.html ) December 14, 1998 Wassenaar Pact May Threaten Global E-com By Jim Kerstetter - PC Week Could a treaty banning the use of strong encryption put the screws, once again, to the U.S. encryption industry? Cryptographers and others in the security industry worry that that could be exactly what is happening. The Clinton administration this month, in an about-face to indications that it was loosening its grip on encryption, announced the signing of a treaty with 32 countries called the Wassenaar Arrangement. The treaty would limit key lengths to 64 bits or less. Clinton administration officials said the treaty will, for the first time, level the playing field for U.S. companies trying to sell abroad. That's true, to a point. U.S. companies have long complained that they were unfairly hampered by the lack of restrictions in other countries. What they had hoped would happen--and what the administration seemed to be edging toward--was an easing of U.S. export laws. They never asked for stronger controls in other countries. The Wassenaar Agreement broadsided many who had watched the Clinton administration over recent years grant export licenses for strong encryption products to companies such as Hewlett-Packard Co. and Netscape Communications Corp. Jeff Smith, general counsel of the Washington industry group Americans for Computer Privacy, said in a statement the treaty is a welcome attempt to level the playing field, but "it also demonstrates flaws in our government's encryption export policies." Security status quo So what does it mean if the agreement does become law? For starters, it would not cut the use of unbreakable encryption. The Data Encryption Standard, the U.S. standard for symmetric, or private-key, encryption, has been broken at 56 bits. No one has publicly acknowledged breaking a DES key longer than that. The Triple DES key, commonly used in the United States, would continue to be illegal for export. Ironically, the government's own proposed Advanced Encryption Standard, which is expected to replace DES in about two years, would not be allowed for export. It's not clear what the treaty will mean to companies that have already been granted export licenses either for strong encryption--the financial-transaction encryption that has been exempt in the past--or for authentication mechanisms that usually take 1,024 bits. In other words, the treaty would reinforce the status quo in the United States. Elsewhere around the world, it could be a different story. Of the 32 other nations, several, such as the United Kingdom and Japan, already have strong encryption controls. But others, such as Germany, have virtually no export controls, and companies there could be seriously impacted. About 18 months ago, the control of encryption products was taken out of the hands of the U.S. Department of Defense, which had long considered encryption a munition, and handed to the Commerce Department. Although the result was often the same--the DOD, the National Security Agency, the CIA and the FBI still had a say in what could and could not be exported--the shift of control was considered by many to be a sign that the administration was growing more friendly to industry concerns. Those hopes were further bolstered when export limits were raised from 40 bits to 56 bits, when financial institutions where allowed to use whatever they wanted to protect transactions and when a long list of companies gained export approval. But the Wassenaar Agreement, which must still be approved by Congress and legislative bodies in most of the participating countries, would put the brakes on that road to government deregulation. Jim Kerstetter is a staff writer at PC Week. Send e-mail to jim_kerstetter(a)zd.com. -Kevlar <Webmaster(a)max-web.com> Does God know Peano Algebra? Or does she not care if strong atheists couldnt reason their way out of a trap made of Boolean presumptions? A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, but zero knowlege is absolutely subversive. Overspecialization breeds in weakness. It's a slow death. Beat your algorithms into swords, your dumb terminals into shields, and turn virtual machines into battlefields... Let the weak say, "I am strong" and question authority.

2 1

Crypto Coops/Internships (Other Than NSA)??
by Blake Buzzini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know of any cryptology-related coop/internship programs other than the one offered by the NSA? Blake Buzzini, PSU

1 0

Test (algebra.com is back)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Test (algebra.com) is back...

1 0

Crypto Coops/Internships (Other Than NSA)??
by Blake Buzzini 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Does anyone know of any cryptology-related coop/internship programs other than the one offered by the NSA? Blake Buzzini, PSU

1 0