- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Criminalizing crypto criticism + 802.11b access
by mmotyka＠lsil.com 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

Declan, It's pretty bad. The exemption (2) only applies if the intent is to advance the state of the art in general or in the development of products. The means to negate the exemption look like they're deeply embedded in the code. (2)(A) is certainly easy to meet - woohoo. (2)(B) is not too bad unless someone decides that your intent goes beyond pure research (3)(A) makes it easier to call the intent impure, especially if the dissemination is general rather than confined to the guild (3)(B) is another thin end of the wedge to get a guild system up and running (3)(C) is not too bad unless it is determined that partial disclosure might indicate a non-research intent (4)(A) is redundant (4)(B) looks like it can be used to severely restrict dissemination to anyone not closely associated with the researcher All in all it's pretty shitty because it looks ( to a non-lawyer ) like it defines the exemptions in such a way as to make it easy to prosectute a person who decides to follow their curiosity and distributes widely. What the fuck is a "legitimate course of study?" Whatever congress and your local prosecutor say it is, right? The carpetbaggers are in control. Rapid, broad, anonymous publishing is the only way to fight it. Re: the Starbucks/MS Wallet access points - big surprise. Who here expected the ideal gateway for anonymity to be handed to us on a silver plater? Wilde was right and life is looking very much like a Gibson novel. Mike On Thu, Jul 26, 2001 at 10:53:02PM -0400, David Jablon wrote: > With these great new laws, there is no longer any risk of being legally > criticised for using even the most glaringly flawed cryptography -- just use it > for Copy Protection, and TADA! Negative criticism magically disappears. > Almost by definition. > > Flaws can only be exposed by those who won't show their work, > or from anonymous sources, who nobody will trust without confirmation [...] [...] > We seem to be entering the twilight zone -- the end of an exciting, > but brief era -- of public cryptography. The DMCA may be bad, but it's not *that* bad. It contains a broad prohibition against circumvention ("No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access") and then has a bunch of exceptions. One of those -- and you can thank groups like ACM for this, if my legislative memory is correct -- explicitly permits encryption research. You can argue fairly persuasively that it's not broad enough, and certainly 2600 found in the DeCSS case that the judge wasn't convinced by their arguments, but at least it's a shield of sorts. See below. -Declan PS: Some background on Sklyarov case: http://www.politechbot.com/cgi-bin/politech.cgi?name=sklyarov PPS: Note you only get the exemption if you make "a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention." Gotta love Congress, eh? http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR: `(g) ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- `(1) DEFINITIONS- For purposes of this subsection-- `(A) the term `encryption research' means activities necessary to identify and analyze flaws and vulnerabilities of encryption technologies applied to copyrighted works, if these activities are conducted to advance the state of knowledge in the field of encryption technology or to assist in the development of encryption products; and `(B) the term `encryption technology' means the scrambling and descrambling of information using mathematical formulas or algorithms. `(2) PERMISSIBLE ACTS OF ENCRYPTION RESEARCH- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure as applied to a copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of a published work in the course of an act of good faith encryption research if-- `(A) the person lawfully obtained the encrypted copy, phonorecord, performance, or display of the published work; `(B) such act is necessary to conduct such encryption research; `(C) the person made a good faith effort to obtain authorization before the circumvention; and `(D) such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. `(3) FACTORS IN DETERMINING EXEMPTION- In determining whether a person qualifies for the exemption under paragraph (2), the factors to be considered shall include-- `(A) whether the information derived from the encryption research was disseminated, and if so, whether it was disseminated in a manner reasonably calculated to advance the state of knowledge or development of encryption technology, versus whether it was disseminated in a manner that facilitates infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including a violation of privacy or breach of security; `(B) whether the person is engaged in a legitimate course of study, is employed, or is appropriately trained or experienced, in the field of encryption technology; and `(C) whether the person provides the copyright owner of the work to which the technological measure is applied with notice of the findings and documentation of the research, and the time when such notice is provided. `(4) USE OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEANS FOR RESEARCH ACTIVITIES- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(2), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to-- `(A) develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure for the sole purpose of that person performing the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2); and `(B) provide the technological means to another person with whom he or she is working collaboratively for the purpose of conducting the acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2) or for the purpose of having that other person verify his or her acts of good faith encryption research described in paragraph (2).

8 21

Re: NRA Prints HALF Of The Story (Barniskis)?
by Neal Lang 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

E-mail From the Desk of Neal Lang Hi, David, Thank you for so generously allowing me more of your valuable time. >Jeez, I can't let this one go by... I thought so. "Don't you just love it when a plan comes together?" >First- I dropped that guy what-his-name from distribution because he wanted off. "A mind is a terrible thing to lose!" >Plenty of stuff on 14A by Kopel and Halbrook pointing out how 2A was integral to it, and how the incorporation doctrine flies in the face of its framers. We can speak theoretically of how it may not have been properly ratified, but it is legally recognized in the here and now, and until it is overturned or repealed, it is something the AG, as you point out, is compelled to uphold. "(B)ut it is legally recognized in the here and now" - As is "compelling state interest". I get the impression, David, that you like to "pick and choose" your principles of established law. I am afraid while you can General Ashcroft can't. >I have never claimed to be a big Marbury fan- I merely cited one important quotation from it that had relevance to the topic. That quotation could have come from Dred Scott as far as I'm concerned and it would still be true, even though the decision of that case was repellant. The problem with using Supreme Court decisions to make your points, David, is that when you cite one you really need to be prepared to defend it. Chief Justice Taney's decision in Dred Scott, for example, would not have been possible but for the political compromise that was the U.S. Constitution. (See Dave Kopel's "Dread the Dred Scott Reference" at: http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel121400.shtml <http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel121400.shtml> - for more information on citing the Supremes.) Once you have established an anti-Natural Right premise that man can be chattel, then any Court decision is possible and likely, IMMHO. >Nowhere have I ever maintained that a felon should be able to use a gun in a crime and not get punished big time. This is a misinterpretation of my arguments, as my concern was for people like you and I getting caught up in the enforcement of existing gun laws, which are and remain, as I pointed out earlier, EXISTING CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT laws. I didn't say PE WAS taking honest citizens off the street, I said that once you open the door to these kinds of laws, enforcement can reflect the policies of the administration in power, and that once you tolerate usurpations of power, important checks against abuse have been ceded. Never did I accuse you of such nonsense. I merely observed how you seemed to have no problem with "heat packing" felons. Obviously I see now that you would prefer that they must leave them home when they go to work. Possibly I mistook your passionate attack against using the existing the Federal Criminal Code's prohibiting felons from possessing firearms to mean more to you than it does. Of course this begs the question, "Can the government (Federal or State) prohibit felons from possessing firearms at all?" Exactly where do you stand, David, on the issue and why? If you agree that the State can and should, why not use such existing laws to separate these felons, who infringe on our rights, IMMHO, from society? If not, than it logically follows that you favor the right of felons to "keep and bear arms", doesn't it? If there is a third (or more possibilities), please enlighten me. Oh, sorry, you did say you wouldn't be back, didn't you? I suppose this burning question will hang there unanswered for eternity. >Yes, we must have strong laws to punish violent criminals; I merely suggest that we can do this without violating the Constitution. For starters, we can all; be safer against predators if we repeal, instead of enforce, unconstitutional gun control laws, as all they do is make it safer for the criminals to operate- isn't that superior to eroding our mutual (and as you pointed out) inalienable rights? I agree. Strong punishment for irresponsible members of society after Constitutionally acceptable "due process". Repeal all those DUMB "gun control laws" that infringe on the right of "responsible" people "to keep and bear arms". Now, that agreed, exactly where do we differ from the "gospel according to Moses"? >Personally, I think your wife OUGHT to be able to have a firearm on school grounds, and concealed on her person, While my wife at one time taught(?) infants in a Day Care School, its my daughter-in-law, who teaches in a inter-city public school, that I am most concerned about in regards to the so-called "Safe Schools Act". This Christmas I got her petite Berretta small caliber pistol for self-defence. I advised her to carry it (if possible) and worry later about "being judged by 12, instead of being carried by six". Interestingly, the Federal "Safe School Act" was properly disposed of by the Supremes (over-reaching commerce clause application instead of 2nd Amendment, but it works for me). The Florida statute cover the same issue is still in affect. However, juries and judges in Palm Beach County (believe or not), where both my daughter-in-law and I live have had enough good sense to "jury nullify" this State law in cases involving obvious self-defence situations. >and that it should be able to hold more than 10 rounds and be semiautomatic, and even be newly purchased even though it is on a federal "ban" list. Absolutely! I feel "Full Auto" (a.k.a. real "Assault Rifles" and "Trench Brooms") and "crew served" weapons are not "unreasonable", as well. After all, just how are we propose to effectively operate under a Congressionally granted "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" (U.S. Constitution - Article I Section 9 Paragraph 3) if our privately owned vessel don't "sport" privately owned "crew served" weapons? (See: http://hartungpress.com/news/columns/baldwin/letters_of_marque_clause.htm <http://hartungpress.com/news/columns/baldwin/letters_of_marque_clause.htm> - for the 2nd Amendment implications.) >I think she ought to be able to have a gun even if she got in a fight and was convicted of misdemeanor assault. Here we might find some disagreement, as I am not so sure that certain irresponsible conduct might not limit the exercise of rights in specific cases. You seem to be ready to disconnect responsible behavior from the "right to be armed". I am not ready to go so far. I believe that a "blanket recognition" that the rkba can be suspended for persons that demonstrate irrational or irresponsible behavior is possible. This could possibly reach the level of "compelling state interest", IMMHO. Would I be upset if such laws, especially any Federal laws, should be over-turned or legislatively repeal? Most likely not. However, I believe all "Civil Rights" require a moral people to exercise them responsibly. >These are existing gun laws, and if she violates them, they can carry federal penalties. I don't want to infringe on her right to keep and bear arms, nor allow the feds to have that power, especially when the proscription against them doing this could not be more clear. Well the School thing is pretty much a State concern now. That said, I too believe in an "unalienable right to keep and bear arms" as long as it is done responsibly by responsible people. James Madison would agree with me on this, David, I think. >Can you guarantee that Project Exile can NEVER be abused to do this? I note with sadness you ignored my challenge to show evidence of government abuse in existing "Project Exile" efforts. Instead you have elected to challenge me to "prove a negative". Which, of course, is quite impossible, as I am sure you are aware. While I understand that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance" and that the Russians (Chinese?) might in fact be coming, I do not plan on leaving work today and going home to load-up my "trusty .06" and head for the beach with my entrenching tool. Truthfully, David, I think your animosity towards "Project Exile" appears to bordering on real paranoia. You being an "inmate" of California I can possibly understand why. Can governments abuse their power, sure, it happens all the time. However, carrying this logic to YOUR CONCLUSION I guess we need to disband our armed forces because they may be (have been) "used to abuse" by our evil government. I believe a corollary (possibly posed by Sarah Brady) to your above challenge, David, might be - "If the government lets the People keep and bear arms, can you guarantee the People will NEVER abuse this right?" >If so, I will surrender on this point and shut up. I know that NRA INTENDS that PE will only affect "those people", but you have failed to demonstrate how NRA will have any say in the matter should political power shift dramatically to the Democrats. Well I truly appreciate your concession. As for the NRA having a say should the power shift, I think your efforts to undermine the NRA may be your self fulfilling prophesy (fantasy?). Keep trying to weaken the NRA and you may one day be able to say - "See, Neal, I told you so, those Socialist are in power and all our rights are history." Personally, while they may have some warts, I believe that the NRA is best and "Most Effective and Influential" game in town when it comes to protecting my "right to keep and bear arms." >And I totally reject your assertion that "my" fight (where the heck did you get THAT impression?) against Project Exile is either hopeless or useless, especially judging from the gun rights leaders who have signed the denouncement statement on keepandbeararms.com. https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=720 <https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=720> They represent some of the finest intellects and activists in the rkba community, and you cannot ignore them or their concerns if you hope to be either effective and innovative. Why on earth would you want to? I get the impression, David, of the "circled firing squad", actually. Even the founders where sometimes wrong, my friend. I submit as proof the Constitutional's enshrining of the institution of "slavery". I don't ignore you or them, David, and I do respect all your opinions. I just believe you (and they) have been blinded by a paranoia that might be justified, however, I see no proof of the any alleged abuses forthcoming. Can "Project Exile" be useful in our on-going struggle to "secure these rights"? Yes, I truly think so. As a matter of fact - rather than continue our dialog where I ask you questions you wont answer, and you ask me questions that no one can answer, possibly an essay extolling the virtues of "Project Exile" is in order. >Here's the problem, Neal- there ain't no light at the end of this tunnel. There will be more back-and-forth and more debating, and more time composing answers and rebuttals and counter-arguments and "gotcha's", but I don't see either one of us budging from our original stance. I suppose I could continue spending time each day on this doing point-counterpoint with you, but I don't see where it's gonna get us. It takes time away from too many other things that I have already prioritized. So I hope you understand that I need to back off of this- I think I was pretty up front about that from the start. I don't think anyone can accuse me of ducking anything, but I'd appreciate it if we could just agree to disagree on this and call a truce. Ah! David, I empathize with your problem - "So much ignorance and so little time." I guess you're right - honest and open debate never settled anything. Just look how badly those dastardly "Federalist Papers" mucked things up for us. I think the problem might just be our separate perceptions of the "glass". I see it as "half-full". While you, my friend, see it as "half-empty" (or maybe "completely empty"?). I suppose this defines the perspective of the "Classical Liberal" versus the "Libertarian". Oh Well! Such is life. I just hope you feel, as do I, that despite our disagreement, we remain friends dedicated to my grandkids' freedom. >Feel free to have the last word on this, but I just GOTTA drop this for now. "Feel free" - as in: "By your leave?" I was going to anyway, but then I guess I am "stiff-necked and ornery" as well. :-) >p.s.- not "Dave"- call it a snotty affectation on my part, but I just never cared for it...:-) Sorry, I had no idea. You should have mentioned it sooner. No offense intended. "Snotty affectation" - COOL! >p.s.s.- the following from Merrill Gibson addresses "compelling state interest"- it is on topic, and this you'll like, Neal, it defends Ashcroft's position. Merrill makes some good points- Thanks, it is indeed excellent. Not Ashcroft's position, David - the CORRECT position. >I ain't totally on board with it, but that's probably just because I'm so stiff-necked and ornery. Ah! But that is exactly why you are so loveable, IMMHO, David. Keep the Faith, Neal <<...>> Neal J. Lang (Signed) E-mail: movwater(a)bellsouth.net <mailto:movwater@bellsouth.net>

2 1

Why the DMCA is anti-security and anti-privacy
by Matthew Gaylor 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

1 0

Panel: Restore vote to felons
by Jim Choate 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

http://salon.com/politics/wire/2001/07/31/felon/index.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate(a)tivoli.com

1 0

Text to speech copies any human voice
by Jim Choate 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

http://slashdot.org/articles/01/07/31/1333253.shtml James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate(a)tivoli.com

1 0

Thought-A-Day
by Fountain Of Joy 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

Be civil to all; sociable to many; familiar with few; friend to one; enemy to none. --Benjamin Franklin ======================================================================= Your name has been recommended to receive thoughts of wisdom from Fountain of Inspiration. These thoughts will be delivered, free of cost, to your desktop,everyday, for an initial evaluation period. We believe that the meaningful insights of these carefully selected thoughts will help to make your life peaceful,successful & happy. However, if you desire to unsubscribe, reply to this email with 'remove' in the subject line. Director, Fountain of Inspiration (A non-religious Organisation)

1 0

RE: You really got to love the new AG
by Neal Lang 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

** John Soat: IT Confidential Attorney General John Ashcroft last week appointed a chief privacy officer for the Justice Department and said that person will take a hard look at Carnivore, the FBI's electronic E-mail eavesdropping device. Ashcroft tapped associate deputy attorney general Dan Collins to serve as CPO for Justice, to "provide advice to senior department officials on privacy-related legal and policy issues," according to a statement. Collins will examine issues such as the privacy implications of law-enforcement technology, the Justice Department's obligation to protect the privacy of the information it acquires in its operations, its responsibility to protect personal privacy from unlawful invasion, and new legislation or regulations regarding privacy. Also, Collins will study DCS1000--the official name for Carnivore-and make recommendations about the need for modifications to the system. This guy's no slouch: He graduated from Harvard summa cum laude, got his law degree from Stanford, clerked for Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia, and served as assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles prior to working at Justice. You think Carnivore's bad? Compare that with a study released last week by security service provider Vigilinx about the risks of doing business in Russia. According to what Vigilinx describes as a "threatscape" assessment of a three-year period, security risks in Russia have escalated since 1996, when then-president Boris Yeltsin ordered top state officials to close the technology gap with the West. According to Vigilinx CEO Bruce Murphy, the Russian government "advocates industrial espionage to close the technological gap with Western economies." The report says highly developed espionage and sabotage techniques are a Cold War legacy. The government controls almost all electronic paths in and out of Russia, the study says, and electronic monitoring is a fact of life. That means "the possibility that U.S. firms are already under active surveillance by Russian special services is very real."

1 0

Election panel calls for voting holiday
by Jim Choate 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/election.laws/index.html James Choate Product Certification - Operating Systems Staff Engineer 512-436-1062 jchoate(a)tivoli.com

1 0

RE: Forced disclosures, document seizures, Right and Wrong.
by Trei, Peter 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

Thanks for your response. The 'in his direct or indirect control' bit is the part that got lost in the article. I hope it was clear that I was not looking for ways to deny a court *access* to a piece of information, but rather using the net (prior to a subpoena) as an way to make *sequestration* of a piece of info impossible, by placing copies permanently outside 'his direct or indirect control'. --------------- I hope you read Mike's 'Oh pointy one' note carefully; it points out one of the great problems most of us IANAL have with IAAL types - the confusion of laws and court action with right and justice, and actions which are simply unlawful at a given time and place with wrong and injustice. Laws and courts are or should be an attempt to map the behaviour of governments to right and justice, but lawyers so often seemed to have been conditioned into thinking they are one and the same, rather than a (very) rough approximation. [Case to point: Canter and Siegel claiming that there was nothing wrong with them sending their Green Card spam, since there was no law against it.] It's possible - indeed essential - for people to argue over right and wrong, justice and injustice without regard for what a given legal and court system says; even a court and legal system which can send Men With Guns after them. Laws do not define Right and Wrong. Courts and Legal Systems do not define Justice. They are better than nothing at all, but we should never imbue them with divine wisdom. That way lies Tyranny. Peter Trei

1 0

None
by Claudine Bouchard 31 Jul '01

31 Jul '01

Hello, I am looking for a simple tracking device to put in my wife`s car so that I can trail her and find out where she is going each day. Thanks for any help that you can give me. kenholt(a)iname.com.

1 0