- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Letter to FCC
by DrZaphod 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

In Message Sat, 13 Feb 93 7:29:25 PST, kumr.lns.com!pozar(a)netcomsv.netcom.com (Tim Pozar) writes: > I should add, it needs to be formated properly or it will not be read >into the record and just tossed. Some where around here I have an >example folks can use. I will dig it up and post it in a day or so. > Well this is a nice little way for the government to bypass public opinion. "If it's not formatted right we won't read it." DrZaphod [AC/DC] / [DnA][HP] [drzaphod(a)ncselxsi.uucp] Technicolorized

2 3

Re: toad.com mailing list postings from possible virus authors
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

John - thanks for opposing censorship, having integrity, finding ways to set up a non-censorable system, and for letting us know about Keith's letter. AlterNet folks - thanks for providing Internet access in a way that's not only usable for commercial communications, but is outside government funding and control. If Al Gore's plans go through, I just can't *wait* to see what happens when Jesse Helms discovers that Congress controls the Next Generation Cable TV net.... Thug - never did like your psuedonym :-). But thanks for writing a somewhat crypto-related note that lets us non-DOS followers know a bit more about what virus problems may be hitting the machines around us - interesting stuff. Geoff - thanks for posting Keith's mail with the ECPA excerpt. It's nice to have confirmation that the ECPA explicitly permits originators, addressees, and intended recipients of electronic communication to divulge its contents, and interesting that it does not forbid service providers to divulge the contents of communication if they are otherwise authorized to see it, which John obviously was. Keith - neither of us are lawyers, but if you wanted to complain about the legality of posting email by the recipient, you'll have to look at copyright laws, presuming that the ECPA language doesn't override copyright where the two conflict. But threatening people like that was in poor taste, just as requesting censorship was. John's posting of your request for censorship was appropriate - if you wanted to complain about Thug's public postings, an open letter to him would have been more appropriate. You've been a big help to the computing community, and we appreciate it, and I realize that viruses are a major problem to providing a site like Simtel. But lighten up, man! Miss Manners, if you're reading this (:-)) - thanks for your recent comments on NPR's Morning Edition about email ettiquette! (She said that it was generally informal, and that expectations of it staying private are unrealistic, given the ease of misrouting mail as well as people's tendencies to repeat things, and we might as well get used to it.) We're doing what we can to improve the technology for private communications, but technology isn't the whole problem, and it's going to take a while before we figure out the sociology of it.... Bill Stewart, somewhere in New Jersey

1 0

Re: Defending Free Speech and Liberty (fwd)
by kelly＠netcom.com 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

Forwarded message: > From cypherpunks-request(a)toad.com Fri Feb 19 11:55:16 1993 > Message-Id: <9302191910.AA05405(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu> > To: tcmay(a)netcom.com (Timothy C. May) > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Re: Defending Free Speech and Liberty > In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 18 Feb 93 23:14:44 PST." > <9302190714.AA23494(a)netcom.netcom.com> > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 12:10:23 -0700 > From: "L. Detweiler" <ld231782(a)longs.lance.colostate.edu> > X-Mts: smtp > > [t.c. May] > >I say, let's expand the scope of the Cypherpunks list to include more > >discussion of viruses. We can't let it become a monopoly of the Authorities > >(the Brunner Authority instead of the Turing Authority?) > > I say, unless it has to do with cryptography, please don't. Does > anybody else want a lot of virus articles on this list? I found the > original thug article a bit questionable, as I said. But a new list > (viruspunks?) might be a good idea. > Count a vote in for viruspunks... I too wish to keep cipherpunks clean even though I love viruses and I wish to have a pure thread about applied crypto and anonymity techniques... --

1 0

Re: toad.com mailing list postings from possible virus authors
by geoffw＠nexsys.net 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

Boy, some people... They get a .mil on the end of their logins and they think their the cops of the world or something :) geoffw

1 0

Re: toad.com mailing list postings from possible virus authors (fwd)
by kelly＠netcom.com 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

Forwarded message: > From cypherpunks-request(a)toad.com Fri Feb 19 07:53:56 1993 > From: Phiber Optik <phiber(a)eff.org> > Message-Id: <199302190537.AA28048(a)eff.org> > Subject: Re: toad.com mailing list postings from possible virus authors > To: gnu(a)toad.com (John Gilmore) > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 93 0:37:18 EST > Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > In-Reply-To: <9302190140.AA08377(a)toad.com>; from "John Gilmore" at Feb 18, 93 5:40 pm > > Granted the idiocy of Mr. High-and-Mighty Army Man's opinion of what people > can and can't say, I couldn't help but point out two silly things in the BY Jove I think you have hit it, People go nto the military because they have an inner need to be controlled and to control to the point of violence if need be( for the military in general and the army , marines and and special intelligence agencies>, they are after all as their prime mission capable of extreme violence and the taking of human life, as a means of social control. Law enforcement seems to have very similiar mentality as well, with CONTROL being the agenda and reason for existance-- Suppose we think of guerilla products such as PGP and anoynmous posting mechanisms and forwarders in their larger social sense As behaviour modification for those who would have our privacy as well as our lives. No social insult is intended by this message about mr peterson or the military /intelligence/police community. We should remember however that with the same body of individuals as just described we are dealing with seriously maladjusted individuals who have an inate need to control others, such has been adequately demonstrated by the individuals attempted supression of Murdering Thug's constitutionally protected speech, instead of taunting them maybe we should be finding ways to prevent our tax dollars from supporting them in their evil OBSCENE fantasies of violence and Control I for one am DAMN TIRED of being censored supressed and persecuted by the military/Law Enforcement/Intelligence community . I am also putting my time in next project with peace/activist/political groups such as the christic action peace groups(you know the folks who use to sue the fed over intelligence abuses by the CIA/NSA/DEA/DIA crouwd) Well i their national organization was wiped out by lawsuit by bush and and company and changes in their tax status. These were and are the same people suing the CIA over the La-penca bombing in honduras of Journalists during the times of the contras in Nicgura. They while their agenda is a good bit more political than ours have been the only ones for years keeping the federal government at bay by lawsuit. They need technical assistance, hookins to peacenet and Econet and general help, considering the widespread nature of the problem we are fighting here maybe we should consider very actively promultagating PGP and DC style anoymous networks among the pease/political/human rights group. It would provide convenient crypto-noise of PGP messgaes and greatly increase the amount of money that the federal government has to spend investigating and force them to spread themselves even more thinly...:) It should also be remembered that the primary impact of products like PGP and DC style nets beyond the privacy implications is economic. Investigating citizens cost real tax dollars, the intelligence oversight committees are not going to let the NSA et al keep asking for more money year after year and the same holds true for the law enforcement community, where a witch hunt was possible before public domain crypto systems such as PGP were available, now because of the blackout in communications to the intelligence community, they are getting very nervuous, people can now communicate secretly about the best way to end the influence of a massively overbloated cold war community and stop paying the bills for same... if you were in THEIR shoes wouldnt you be seeking ways to keep ATLAS from shrugging??? cheers kelly P.s. sorry for the long and drawn out nature and the rambling style and the non-techical content, and I do feel it was important to express myself in the fashion I have...

1 0

the revocation blues
by peter honeyman 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

this certainly presents a challenge for the trust web. i suppose the key ring needs a "kill" list. peter ------- Forwarded Message Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp,sci.crypt From: perry(a)jpunix.com (John A. Perry) Subject: Key Revocation Problems Organization: J. P. and Associates, Dickinson, TX Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1993 23:56:35 GMT Message-ID: <C2KFuC.7Iw(a)jpunix.com> Keywords: PGP keys - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hello Everyone! Several of us have been wrestling with a key revocation problem for some time now. When I first installed PGP 2.1 I had a weird chain of events follow. I generated my personal key and sent a copy of my public key to Vesselin Bontchev and Ken van Wyk. This key was posted to one of the large keyrings almost immediately. Several hours later, I was still playing with PGP and suffered a disk crash. I had not yet had a chance to back up my keyring. Needless to say, I lost the keyring and now I have no way to revoke the key. The specific key I'm talking about is 0x76A3. The key I currently use, 0xB199 is the one I plan on using from now on. It is backed up frequently of course. About a week ago I sent a signed message to Vesselin explaining the problem and he agreed to add his own comments, sign it, and post it to alt.security.pgp and sci.crypt. The message seems to have fallen through the cracks which is why I'm posting this message. I'm sure if Vesselin, explorer(a)iastate.edu, and warlord(a)mit.edu are reading this, they will add their own verifications of this problem. If I receive the errant message from Vesselin, I'll repost it also. In the meantime, if you feel this is enough verification to remove the public key 0x76A3 from your public keyring, I sure would appreciate it. If you require further verification, I will be glad to discuss it on the phone. My home number is 713-534-3653 and my work number is 409-772-2706 (the secretary). I apologize for any inconvenience. At least this fluke chain of events may show everyone the importance of backing up your PGP keyrings often. Remember 0xB199 is the good one!! - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.1e iQCVAgUBK4F/K1oWmV4X/7GZAQHRvAP/QYDZU8xD7v4y4SJbE1bgp2FVTQWOt106 YJjOAXSyKQuZKQVxLOSF2c4kq0PS3+kUQedWTvccxB6koUAp6gscBg4UFWYQAQc5 Tu5QIE/c9XHhmergEKGpVz9GDVPiolMJbKh3Ni6q/Wul8T65vtT+y9alN8KDIJZt IGTeSspNtVo= =whcq - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- - -- John A. Perry - perry(a)jpunix.com jpunix!perry PGP 2.1 signature available by fingering perry(a)phil.utmb.edu ------- End of Forwarded Message

2 1

Re: toad.com mailing list postings from possible virus authors
by gnu 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

Keith, Kenneth: I have been busy both cutting a GDB release (which isn't done yet) and dealing with immediate management needs at my company. But your concerns are also of grave concern to me, so I'll take the time to answer you fully. I am uninterested in censorship of discussion of *any* topic on mailing lists through my machine. Your opinion is that this is inappropriate use of the Internet. I own the machine free and clear. I personally pay its network bills. If you examine its net connectivity and the associated connection contracts, you will find that the machine is attached via a worldwide network that explicitly promises not to censor any traffic UNLESS AND UNTIL a court of law -- not you -- has decided that that traffic is actually illegal. And my machine sends email traffic for any host (other than a short list known to be on uncensored networks) to uunet, which is explicitly authorized by NSF to forward uncontrolled outside traffic (e.g. from uucp sites) into the NSFnet. You see, I anticipated that third parties would want to control what I and my friends might want to talk about using this wonderful networking technolgy. And we aren't interested in your opinion. No offense intended, Keith -- I think you have done some truly great work for the community. But when you imply that conversations though my machine are in any way illegal or inappropriate, you've overstepped my respect for you. > This person appears to be a virus > author, one who knows virus authors, and/or one who encourages such > activity. Thank you, Senator McCarthy. I believe that thug(a)phantom.com is not a smart-card-carrying member of the virus authors' guild, but I'm not sure. I think that the attitude that it's OK for "computer scientists" or "virus researchers" to talk about viruses, to dissect them in detail, and to write or modify them, but it isn't OK for anyone else to do so, is two-faced and objectionable. Security by obscurity -- forcing people to be unaware of issues and threats like these, whether by explicit censorship, pressure on intermediate sites, or by social ostracism -- not only doesn't remove the threat, but is an affront to our open society. If you think that the public should be protected from the *content* of the particular message that was forwarded to me, I recommend that you look at recent issues of Info Security News (formerly ISPNews), one of the better trade rags covering security products. They seem to be running an article series by Alan Solomon on exactly how stealth viruses work, and they provided a lot more details than the overview posting that came through toad.com. I've seen articles in the Sep/Oct and Nov/Dec 1992 issues so far. Just as important to the cypherpunks posting was the author's exploration of the impacts on society resulting from the technology (the movement toward memory-protected and permission-controlled operating systems, the impacts of automating virus creation so that children can do it, etc). The Solomon articles focused completely on technical issues, leaving the reader in the dark about how to cope over the next few years. My own opinion is that viruses are what will finally put a stake through the heart of DOS. It's a dirty job, but somebody has to do it. If true, or even 10% likely, it's something that a hundred million people had better talk about, so they can prepare for it. John Gilmore gnu(a)toad.com

3 2

Re: toad.com mailing list postings from possible virus authors
by geoffw＠nexsys.net 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

> Subject: Re: toad.com mailing list postings from possible virus authors > From: w8sdz(a)TACOM-EMH1.Army.Mil (Keith Petersen - MACA WSMR) > Content-Type> : > text> > Content-Length: 2643 > X-Lines: 59 > Status: RO > > John, by quoting and reposting without my permission, my private > message to you to a public mailing list you have violated the Federal > Communications Privacy Act of 1986. > > PUBLIC LAW 99-508--OCT. 21, 1986 > > TITLE II--STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICA- > TIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS > > ss. 2702. Disclosure of contents > > "(a) Prohibitions.--Except as provided in subsection (b)-- > "(1) a person or entity providing an electronic > communication service to the public shall not knowingly > divulge to any person or entity the contents of a > communication while in electronic storage by that service; > and > "(2) a person or entity providing remote computing > service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any > person or entity the contents of any communication which > is carried or maintained on that service-- > "(A) on behalf of, and received by means of > electronic transmission from (or created by means of > computer processing of communications received by > means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber > or customer of such service; and > "(B) solely for the purposed of providing storage or > computer processing services to such subscriber or > customer, if the provider is not authorized to access > the contents of any such communications for purposes > of providing any services other than storage or > computer processing. Keith, Maybe you should read more carefully... > "(b) Exceptions.-- A person or entity may divulge the > contents of a communication-- > "(1) to an addressee or intended recipient of such > communication or an agent of such addressee or intended > recipient; > "(2) as otherwise authorized in section 2516, > 2511(2)(1) , or 2703 of this title; > "(3) with the lawful consent of the originator or an > addressee or intended recipient of such communication, or > the subscriber in the case of remote computing service; I think John is the "intended recipient of such communication" as I am also an "intended recipient" of this communication from you, which I will post to cypherpunks so others can see what kind of person you are. If your intention is to "threaten" with this kind of foolishness, then I must warn you, I consider this type of behavior harassment due to the confrontive nature of your post. Let it go on record that I don't expect to be harassed, intimidated or "threatened" and I think the Internet rules are VERY clear about this type of behavior. Geoff White (GW67) geoffw(a)nexsys.net

1 0

For other news on SDECE and foreign intell ops...
by Peter Wayner 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

Check out a new book by Peter Schweitzer entitled _Friendly Spies_. (Atlantic Monthly Press). It tells plenty of stories about how many US companies are the targets for foreign economic intelligence. To me, it is the best argument for the government to _encourage_ the widespread use of strong cryptography. -Peter

1 0

Test the new remailer
by Anonymous＠cs.Buffalo.EDU 19 Feb '93

19 Feb '93

I encourage everyone to at least send a test message through the remailer so that I can lay my fears thtat the reamailer is not working down to rest. Not only that... it's really easy. Try it! -- +==== Internet: babani(a)cs.buffalo.edu ===+======== Amateur-Radio: N2LYC ======+ ! Bitnet: V078LNGT(a)ubvms.BITNET | UUCP: rutgers!ub!babani ! ! Alternate: an173(a)cleveland.freenet.edu | Plsure dpnds on the othrs prmison. ! +== PGP key available. (If you don't know what a PGP key is... find out!) ==+

1 0