- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by David Honig 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

At 02:52 PM 8/30/01 -0400, Faustine wrote: > >And as long as you have companies like ZeroKnowledge who are >willing/gullible/greedy/just plain fucking stupid enough to sell their >betas to the NSA, you never will. > >~Faustine. If knowledge of how something works breaks it, it wasn't worth having. No security gained through obscurity. You have to assume NSA can examine any code they want to. Regular Kevin Mitnicks, them.

1 0

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by David Honig 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

At 02:41 PM 8/30/01 -0400, Faustine wrote: >And by the way, if you're going to question >SafeWeb for cooperating with CIA, you might as well criticize ZeroKnowledge >for selling a boatload of the Freedom beta to the NSA in 1999 as well. What >did they think they wanted it for, farting around on Usenet? I bet they had >that sucker reverse-engineered and compromised in two minutes flat. Were you intending to insult ZK authors[1]? The spooks would have studied the tool and its design, and set up a test net to study the traffic. Depending on their resources and the interesting-ness of the ZK-using 'targets in the field' they would have thought about what can be recovered from observations and interventions. As they do with everything, from code to routers. Maybe they would, in 2 minutes, look at it and say, "oh, well, they used the Foobar library's implementation of RSA, and we know how to exploit a bug in that version, and can leverage that to break their scheme, so all their zero knowledge is ours". Or "lookee here, they didn't check a buffer overflow and we can 0wn their nodes" But exploration takes time, especially for a system designed from start to resist. Unless you think they're magic. [1] I'm not one, nor do I know any

1 0

Not�cias Jur�dicas: 6a.feira, 31 de agosto de 2001 no Espa�o Vital Virtual
by "Espa�o Vital Virtual" <Espa�o Vital Virtual 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

1 0

speech + action
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

Tim, It's not easy to find great links but I still say that speech + action is something that a prosecutor can use to the disadvantage of the accused even if the speech is legal and the action appears to be ineffectual or undirected. Look at how AP was used. 18 U.S.C. 23 1 seems to link speech directly with the action of paramilitary training, even if there is no specific target. The speech portion of the offense enables a heavy response to the otherwise unpunishable action. Whether or not anyone has been convicted under this statute there it sits, ready to pounce. Admittedly these are weak cites but I do think the ( legal_but_unpopular_speech + unpunishable_action = crime ) idea is embodied in laws. I think eventually it'll somehow get extended to address the cyberterrordangerouslyeducatedchaosprogrammerdeaththreat that faces each and every freedom-loving, net-browsing Amurrican today! Maybe the pro bono brigade of the unorganized, non-organizational, casually associational, non-paramilitary, non-coding, non-militia, profusely verbal cypherpunks flying circus will chime in with some fun stuff. Mike http://www.sfgate.com/okc/winokur/0423.html http://www.vpc.org/studies/awapara.htm In 1986, the ADL formulated model state legislation that would ban paramilitary training "aimed at provoking civil disorder."[104] In drafting the model bill, the ADL specifically stated that the statute must not violate First Amendment freedoms of speech and association. Another objective was to draft the statute narrowly so that it would not prohibit legitimate lawful activities such as target shooting and other sporting events. This was important, the ADL stated, for "minimizing opposition to the bill by powerful special interest groups." [105] Laws based on the statute have passed in Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, and West Virginia.[106] http://www.channel4000.com/news/dimension/dimension-960425-133523.html http://www.hatemonitor.org/Research_articles/levin10.html - please read the last paragraph - keeping records of public speech becomes part of the procsecutor's toolbox - the speech seems to be a necessary component of the prosecution. "The current federal paramilitary training statute, 18 U.S.C. 23 1, punishes only those who instruct others in fomenting violent civil disorder. Clearly, the statute should punish trainees as well. Similar statutes have been enacted in at least 24 states. " http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/pen/11460.html - Read this one and think about how speech could be used to facilitate indictment. http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq5.htm look at the end.

2 1

News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by Tim May 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

This report says the U.S. Gov't. has plans to make "SafeWeb," the Web proxy company it helped fund through the CIA, available to Chinese citizens who want to bypass their government's censorship. http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010830/wr/tech_china_internet_report_dc_1. html (I can already hear Aimee moaning about this anarchic undermining of the official Chinese government...until she realizes it has been blessed by a "legitimate" organ of the government.) So, what happens when Iran decides to finance systems in the U.S. to bypass U.S.G. censorship (e.g., of talk by freedom fighters)? Or when Denmark finances a system to bypass crackdowns on teen erotica in the U.S.? And so on. Here's a brief excerpt: Thursday August 30 3:23 AM ET U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship -NYT NEW YORK (Reuters) - United States government agencies hope to finance an American-based computer network designed to thwart attempts by the Chinese government to censor the World Wide Web for users in China, the New York Times reported in its online edition on Thursday. .... According to the report, the agency is in advanced discussions with Safeweb, a small company based in Emeryville, California, which has received financing from the venture capital arm of the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites), In-Q-Tel. The discussions were confirmed by parties on both sides, the newspaper said. Safeweb currently runs its own worldwide network of about 100 privacy servers -- computers that help disguise what Web sites a user is seeking to view -- which are popular with users in China, according to the report. The newspaper said the privacy servers have been a continuing target for the Chinese government, which has blocked most of them in recent weeks.

5 10

Re: News: "U.S. May Help Chinese Evade Net Censorship"
by Ken Brown 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

Faustine wrote: [...] > Of course it has a trap door, that's probably the whole point of getting it > over there in the first place. And by the way, if you're going to question > SafeWeb for cooperating with CIA, you might as well criticize ZeroKnowledge > for selling a boatload of the Freedom beta to the NSA in 1999 as well. What > did they think they wanted it for, farting around on Usenet? I bet they had > that sucker reverse-engineered and compromised in two minutes flat. Stands > to reason. I wouldn't trust either of them with anything significant. If it can be compromised by NSA looking at a beta, it can be compromised by whoever the Chinese have doing this sort of thing. If it is safe enough to use in a life-or-death situation AT ALL it is safe enough to use if the NSA & uncle Tom Cobbley and all have the source code. If not, not. Ken

1 0

None
by Anonymous 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

When I saw the "general response to bombz" post with the below mentioned book, I asked my significant other to please order a copy for me, because she gets a very nice reduction on prices of books she buys as an employed of Borders Bookstore chain. She refused to enter this request into their computer system to place an order, because she claims that the store monitors orders for some categories of special orders, and reports these orders to the police as a custom of policy! Buyers of bookstores beware. -------------------------------------- Eissler, M. "A Handbook on Modern Explosives: A Practical Treatise, with Chapters on Explosives in Practical Applications" London: Crosby Lockwood and Son, 1897. 2nd, Enlarged, fair, illus., appendices, index.

2 1

Re: Borders UK and privacy
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

Duncan Frissell <frissell(a)panix.com> >On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Bill Stewart wrote: > >> David Brin's book "The Transparent Society" suggests that you >> might as well get used to it. Technological change driven by >> the Moore's Law effects in computing power are making >> video cameras and computer image processing get cheaper rapidly, >> so the marginal benefit of using them doesn't have to be very high >> to outweigh the marginal cost. The real issues are still getting data, > >On the other hand, the technology of disguise and the public taste for >radical body modification and active clothing all suggest that many of us >will soon be denying a useful image to the opposition. Then we won't have >to worry until genetic sniffers become popular. > >Genetic sniffers, however can probably be defeated by devices that give >off clouds of genetically random human biological material. > Didn't John Young note that a large portion of the waste removed from the London underground was human hair and skin flakes? Waste not want not. >Offense and defense back and forth forever. > >DCF >---- >Marshal de Vaubin -- No stronghold be ever invested stood. No position he >ever defended fell.

5 5

Re: The Privacy/Untraceability Sweet Spot
by Fisher Mark 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

>When you were asked where were all the supposed wealthy freedom fighters >in communist controlled regimes, you came back with Osama bin Laden. Tim's point, which many seem to have missed, is that by design a tool that enforces the privacy, anonymity, and pseudonymity of a women striving for equal rights in Afghanistan can also be used by the Taliban in their quest to track down and kill Afghans who converted to Christianity and are now preaching the Word. Tools are tools -- the uses are what we make of them. If you don't want to create tools that can be used for evil, then you must forgo the making of tools. Crypto anarchy is coming -- we had best prepare for it, lest it overwhelm us. In the end, I believe that it will result in more freedom for more people, by restraining those in government from doing any silly thing they like to us. Although I see many people complain about the excesses of corporations, in about every case I can think of the harm they did was enabled by the collusion of government officials. If you can restrain the actions of government (by crypto anarchy, voting "the rascals out of office", or whatever), you will generally improve the amount of freedom people have to live their lives. =============================================== Mark Leighton Fisher fisherm(a)tce.com Thomson multimedia, Inc. Indianapolis IN "Display some adaptability." -- Doug Shaftoe, _Cryptonomicon_

1 0

The Tim May Question
by A. Melon 31 Aug '01

31 Aug '01

In another message Tim wrote: >On Sunday, August 26, 2001, at 12:11 AM, Reese wrote: >> It's easy to stay on topic, or on a topic, it's another thing to be >> appropriate. Tim is good, but easy improvement is within reach, as >> you sort of noted. > > Fuck off. I'll take constructive criticism from people who are > better writers than I, or at least in the same ballpark. > > But not from those who have left no lasting impression. I'm not sure if Reese was replying to one of my messages, but this obsession less productive posters have with Tim is peculiar. Looked at as an engineering problem, one tends to look at the underperforming components. Let's say you are running a steel mill, and the average uptime of your blast furnaces is 10%. One is 95%. Nobody would spend their time trying to get the last 5% out of the best furnace. Anybody would look at it and figure out how to get the other furnaces performing. So, some other force is at work. One candidate is the usual tedious resentment that some people feel towards people they see as smarter, more knowledgeable, and more creative than themselves. This sort of behavior is deeply repugnant to me, much more so than occasional political incorrectness. Another candidate is that certain people see Tim as somehow their leader (or something), therefore making him accountable in some way. Given that Tim is not anybody's leader and doesn't seem to want to be, this is less repugnant than it is ridiculous.

3 2