- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Zimmerman legal fund
by hoz＠univel.telescan.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >I just received a bit of mail asking about the Zimmermann Legal >Defense Fund, which, like many folks out there, I support. The writer >implied that he might give money because I suggest it in my sig, but >expressed questions about its legitamacy, and questioned if it's "just >someone trying to exploit the Zimmerman case" > >Could someone in the know talk about the relationship between FV and >the ZLDF? I don't like to spread misinformation, so I won't answer >based on conjectures. > I had similar concerns last month, so I emailed the following to csn.net!dubois ("Philip L. Dubois") > > Could you please inform me of the financial status of the fund > raising for the Phil Zimmerman case? How much money has been > collected, and how much has been spent, and what are the future > anticipated expenses? I might like to contribute, but "a normally > unreliable source" has claimed to me that something on the order of > $50,000 has been spent, and there is not even an indictment yet. > Is this true and is this reasonable? Is it true that some/all of > his legal services are being done "pro bono" (I hope I got that phrase > correct, maybe I should just say "for free") > > If you choose to reply, may I have permission to make your reply public? > > Rick F. Hoselton (who doesn't claim to present opinions for others) > I got back the following reply: > >Mr. Hoselton-- > >Since the government has not yet decided whether to indict Mr. Zimmermann, or at least hasn't >told us its decision if it has made one, we continue to accept donations to the Zimmermann >Legal Defense Fund. I've never added up the total amount of all donations to date, but I >doubt that it would be in the neighborhood of $50,000. I can tell you that several lawyers >have been working on the case and that all of them but me have done so pro bono, which means >that they have not been paid. Since I have been lead counsel and have therefore had primary >responsibility for the defense, I have not been pro bono, at least not entirely; I have not >billed for much of my time. We have no way of knowing how long this case will go on. The >government could tell us today that it won't indict, in which case it will be all over, or it >could indict very soon, or it could do nothing until June of 1996 when the statute of >limitations expires. > >You have my permission to make my reply public. > >Philip L. Dubois >Counsel for Philip Zimmermann > Rick F. Hoselton (who doesn't claim to present opinions for others)

1 0

Re: Anti-Electronic Racketeering Act of 1995
by danisch＠ira.uka.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >1. If the bill becomes law, how can someone who violates it be > >punished? > > > > - From the top of my head: > Subpoena your service provider's computer records. That's not a problem. He will find a lot of encrypted messages and images of nude girls. Both is not illegal. :-) > Intimidate your roommate > into testifying against you. I don't have a roommate. > Tapping your phone. I use encrypted modem connections and Nautilus. > Feds are in the business of putting people behind bars. They are _very_ good > at it. That's the question. How long can they put me behind bars? > I'm betting that the Feds will adopt as a working definition anything that > requires a key to decrypt the communications. That means compression > software, rot13, and most hash functions are ok. rot13 is not ok, 13 is the key. Someone should register at the department. :-) > Expert Testimony: "We experimented with 113,296 keys chosen at random and > the defendants algorithm took an average of 29,000 years to find each one. > It is our professional opinion, therefore, that the defendant is jacking us > around and ought to be keelhauled". Oh boy, wonderful experts.... Hadmut

1 0

Re: Root Causes Roots
by Michael Froomkin 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Ray asks what on earth I'm talking about the 9th amendment not applying to the right to write code, since people were using codes to protect their communications long before the passage of the bill of rights. I always understood "writing code" as in "cypherpuks write code" to mean computer code, that is FORTRAN, C++, assembler, perl or whatever. I understand "writing IN code" to be the use of cryptographic tools such as codes or cyphers. Thus my claim that the right to write IN code may have existed in the 1790s, but the right to write [computer] code could not (since there were no computers). Of course, I could be wrong about this, since however you define it, it's debateable whether I'd pass the code test to qualify as a cypherpunk, since I stopped writing code when I gave up programming for lawyering, and I didn't start writing in code when I started writing about codes. In any case it's a matter of definitions, not timelines. Note: I am not suggesting that the right to write code lacks constitutional protection; just that the protection wouldn't come from the 9th amendment. My views on the constitutional right to write IN code, which also does not rely on the 9th amendment, can be found in my Clipper paper, which Hal Abelson has kindly ported in Netscape friendly form to: http:// -- Michael Froomkin until Aug 6: michael(a)umlaw.demon.co.uk U.Miami School of Law London, England mfroomki(a)umiami.ir.miami.edu <-- this will still find me PO Box 248087 Coral Gables, FL 33124-8087 Rain. Sun. Rain. Sun. Rain.

1 0

Re: A Chronology on crypto bans
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:08 PM 7/16/95 -0400, Dave Banisar wrote: >Attempts to ban encryption 1977-1995 > >1977-1980 NSA Director Inman calls crypto born secret. Should be restricted. >Attempts to use Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 to patent inventions by >academic researchers. Attempts to use export control laws to limit >scientific discussion. >NSA Threatens NSF over grants for crypto studies. I hope that you emphasize the big impact of the IEEE/MIT/Scientific American/NSA/"A Proposal for a Public Key Encryption System" flap of 1978(?). An awful lot of people first learned about public-key/private-key algorithms because of that fight. DCF "You men can't fight in here. This is the War Room." -- Dr. Strangelove (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb).

1 0

Re: Is it legal for commercial companies to use PGP?
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:36 AM 7/18/95 EDT, Jim Grubs, W8GRT wrote: >In practice, I'd probably buy Viacrypt for legal reasons but use PGP anyway. That doesn't help anything - folks asked Bidzos about that one. Of course, if your PGP version happens to output "2.7.1" as a version number, it's not abusing any trademarks.... # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com

1 0

Re: SurfWatch for employees (ugh)
by stewarts＠ix.netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:36 PM 7/17/95 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote: >Consistent with the trend towards treating employees like children, I'm not surprised someone sees a market for this. I've worked at a number of customer sites that block access to 900 numbers and local pay-per-call numbers, which also blocks access to Time-of-day and some vendors' customer-support numbers. >Webster Network Strategies has announced (but apparently has not >shipped) a product similar to SurfWatch but aimed at an employment >environment. The product is called "WebTrack" and supposedly supports >access lists of URLs, where access can be allowed to "all but these sites" >or "only to these sites". The product also can be configured to log all >Web usage by users subjected to its reign of terror. :) WebTrack >is priced at $7,500 with an annual subscription to I assume for that price that it's a gateway product, rather than a site license for a censored client (which would require sysadmins to go hunt down everybody's copy of netscape...) If so, I hope the system at least offers caching (to save on outside bandwidth requirements and download time), and has a fair amount of security so it doesn't become a hole in the firewall. >its list of interesting (err, forbidden) sites priced at $1,500. Wow! Folks have finally found a way to get paid for looking for porn on the net! :-) Surfwatch doesn't make it's censored list easily available (otherwise it'd probably get pirated, or used as an "interesting sites" index...), but apparently it blocks access to things other than just pornography - does Webster indicate what categories of stuff they're blocking? # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com

3 2

cfs for linux
by zinc 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- cpunks, some time ago i inquired about an encryption program for linux. i eventually obtained cfs from Matt Blaze (thanks...). i haven't dealt with this for some time but i have been unable to compile it. if anyone running linux has it working i'd appreciate hearing from you. here are the errors i get if anyone is interested... zifi:~/projects/cfs> make cc -O -c cfs_adm.c -o cfs_adm.o cfs_adm.c: In function `admproc_null_2': cfs_adm.c:47: number of arguments doesn't match prototype admproto.h:183: prototype declaration cfs_adm.c: In function `admproc_attach_2': cfs_adm.c:54: argument `rp' doesn't match prototype admproto.h:186: prototype declaration cfs_adm.c: In function `admproc_detach_2': cfs_adm.c:155: argument `rp' doesn't match prototype admproto.h:189: prototype declaration make: *** [cfs_adm.o] Error 1 thanks, - -pat patrick finerty = zinc(a)zifi.genetics.utah.edu = pfinerty(a)nyx.cs.du.edu U of Utah biochem grad student in the Bass lab - zinc fingers + dsRNA! ** FINGER ME for my pgp public key ** crypto for the masses! zifi runs LINUX 1.2.11 -=-=-=WEB=-=-=-> http://zifi.genetics.utah.edu -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMAxUm03Qo/lG0AH5AQE4DAQAoxA44ESm/7xQ1ke+8yo2VqCemmlrKJkh 2vuJnC4lhayAWEHzKuiqf3G3AAPHHqQdX8JBGNZWt0TAuyoGMWTRI2/U0jTe82AC ew4Y6WzZTEvmdxHaxTFU9R2q6MUOGe4U6Bmdt8tMeU2hy5jDvoijgdiSfBJrU9eS p2Cd2eigAFs= =cQCG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Is it legal for commercial companies to use PGP?
by jgrubs＠voxbox.norden1.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- jgrubs(a)voxbox.norden1.com (Jim Grubs, W8GRT) writes: > As I recall, the following is a correct scenario: a customer can use PGP to > send credit card numbers to a vendor he's making a personal purchase from, > but the vendor must use Viacrypt. If the customer is buying something to use > for business, BOTH must use Viacrypt. In practice, I'd probably buy Viacrypt for legal reasons but use PGP anyway. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: http://norden1.com/~jim/sylvania.html iQCVAwUBMAu5iN74r4kaz3mVAQF11QQAiNccy69sb5OA1jmOpErqqZNJ4sNx3smW tAJQ3lD1op4qlPIO48vxwkvr+IaQyyOkf797+9Ca1z9WtxgwSamo32BQnPQZ6Pbm Vipmpwrabrxq67TOrGgxNp3UN7oBZl3eyad0hIj6ENzs8u1wi3wkHUV/3z341XB7 u953orkOZSk= =UYrt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- WebCasters(tm) James C. Grubs jgrubs(a)voxbox.norden1.com 6817 Maplewood Avenue Tel.: 419-882-2697 Sylvania, Oh 43560 Fax: 419-885-2814 Internet consulting, HTML programing, Information brokering

4 3

Re: RC4 crack
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <21076.9507180656(a)exe.dcs.exeter.ac.uk>, aba(a)atlas.ex.ac.uk wrote: >> Is there an easy way to integrate machines who are not on-net 24-7 >> into this protocol? Not all of us have dedicated lines.:) > >Well you could run a local master, ... or as you are using NT right? >you could use Andy's code when he adds socket support to interface to >masters. > >As to the problem of not having 24-7 connectivity, you could either >use the WWW page, or the server (it will do this anyway) will keep >re-trying to get a socket connect to the master until it suceeds, so >when you next go on-line ... wham it gets through again as >connectivity is resumed and says whatever it has been trying to say. >We need it to retry in case of network out (or horror) big master >falling over, until it gets resumed. On many machines that will mean that it will try to initiate a connection to the host. Please allow for a manual connect option. - -- - -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. - --- [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 iQBFAwUBMAwdryoZzwIn1bdtAQHrDwGArifMl83/simhOGutmo8FhYgtCMZ+9g5E stSoeOysXuLCvv3EK3PTTUO4LdtPbhnn =rq/L -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Is it legal for commercial companies to use PGP?
by jgrubs＠voxbox.norden1.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Gillogly <jim(a)acm.org> writes: > > > Rick Busdiecker <rfb(a)lehman.com> writes: > > From: "Jim Grubs, W8GRT" <jgrubs(a)voxbox.norden1.com> > > > In practice, I'd probably buy Viacrypt for legal reasons but use > > PGP anyway. > > >I'd be interesting in hearing some of the lawyers out there comment on > >this. > > Does RSADSI count as having lawyers? So far as I know they have not > commented in public about whether the ViaCrypt license is valid, but > they have also not (to my knowledge) contested it. However, Jim Bidzos > has explicitly said that it is not acceptable to buy a ViaCrypt license > to cover your use of non-ViaCrypt PGP. Hmm, does that make anyone besides me wonder about that unpulished source code? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: http://norden1.com/~jim/sylvania.html iQCVAwUBMAxYot74r4kaz3mVAQESFwP/cws/p52apS7V7xMZ/7jHmarUKLSpxOox nOk8sirst2p9vQqzvR88lwzmGecLb1/lc/mWKzAV1DT4dMAzyljV7d9UIiW0wTvk i5I4o7IQ9ogppdzEt7XdG0rlQCAHHsUYYa1oVufz4OtOd0cHi2SRXje7XSTrxQYF 0FbSsqZsxuw= =YrUs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- WebCasters(tm) James C. Grubs jgrubs(a)voxbox.norden1.com 6817 Maplewood Avenue Tel.: 419-882-2697 Sylvania, Oh 43560 Fax: 419-885-2814 Internet consulting, HTML programing, Information brokering

1 0