- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Comercialice su Negocio por Interne
by asesor＠ragnatela.miller.com.mx 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Vimos su anuncio en los Clasificados y pensamos que esta informacion puede ser de su interes. Si usted no desea recibir mas mensajes de este tipo, inserte la palabra "remove" en el Subject/Asunto y automaticamente sera borrado de nuestra lista. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Publicite su negocio a miles de personas de forma GRATUITA. Visite nuestra pagina y obtenga GRATIS un programa para diseñar su pagina Web en 10 minutos: http://www.miller.com.mx/biz.html

1 0

Re: "Bioarmageddon"
by Neels Kriek 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just read "The Cobra Event"by the author of "The Hot Zone" Although mostly fiction it makes for some very scary reading.

1 0

WARNING: softSENTRY is a SCAM
by qweasd123＠my-dejanews.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Windows developers, DO NOT purchase 20/20 Software's outrageously priced ($695) softSENTRY utility. The package IS A SCAM. Before reading the below document I found on the Web, understand that DLL- and component-based copy protection systems are inherently easy to crack. (softSENTRY incorporates a DLL-based protection as one of its options, in addition to direct .exe "protection".) Also understand that utilities such as Shrinker and WWPack are only useful for compression, NOT protection from reverse engineering. EXE-compressors are notorious for being easy to crack. Do you want me to convince you? http://209.44.62.170/pir8/files/ak.html provides cracks for Vbox, SalesAgent, softSENTRY, TimeLock, and many other copy protection schemes. (Yes, the much overbloated Vbox is now WORTHLESS as a copy protection system.) For cracks of just about any EXE-compressor/encryptor you can think of (including WWPack32, Protect!, and Shrinker), visit http://www.nettaxi.com/citizens/caligo/main.htm. Yes, you can also forget about using Shrinker or WWPack to protect your app's code. They are both absolutely WORTHLESS in that respect as well. Cracks for them are now everywhere on the Web. ----------------------- e-mail: LSD-LSD(a)usa.net ----------------------- Hello out there. I am somewhat of a newbie at cracking (with some knowledge of assembly) but thought I'd try my luck at a commercial protection scheme for one of my first cracks. I will show you how to crack an extremely stupid, ready-made protection scheme, softSENTRY 2.07 from 20/20 Software. Download the trial version (itself extremely easy to crack) from http://www.twenty.com/pgs/dlidx.html. This software allows zombie programmers (who, IMHO, do not deserve to be called programmers if they have fallen for this disgustingly bogus protection) to "automatically" convert their FULL programs to "protected" trial versions. Sounds like a snake oil vendor, right? It is precisely that: bogus commercialism at its very best. (This crappy, $695 piece of junk really is worth only ten bucks. I have encountered far better utilities priced five times less.) Okay, what tools do we need to crack softSENTRY? - Numega's Soft-Ice - a good hex-editor I will not show you how to crack the demo of softSENTRY, because the process is boringly easy to do. (Do it youself! Tip: Delete c:\windows\system\ss.drv and the "magic key" located at HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\{XXXXXXXXXX} to restore the trial period.) I shall, however, show how to murder its weak protection scheme! (By the way, the fact that softSENTRY's own protection is so weak indicates a lot about the quality of the product itself!!) Prepare a test target by protecting some small program like Notepad in order to disassemble the process and watch how softSENTRY "works". For disassembly, we will utilize SoftIce because W32Dasm89 seemed to crash when I attempted to load the target. The protected file and the original file have different sizes. "Clever", you would have thought, as I did, "Maybe there's some encryption and variable random protection scheme inside the target." Well, you're in for quite a surprise. Now hold your breath; THIS IS THE ENTRY POINT FOR ALL PROTECTED FILES: :004B066F CC int 03 :004B0670 55 push ebp :004B0671 8BEC mov ebp,esp :004B0673 83EC48 sub esp,00000048 :004B0676 53 push ebx :004B0677 56 push esi :004B0678 57 push edi :004B0679 E950000000 jmp 004B06CE ; This is a very strange jump, wouldn't you say? :004B067E 0000 add [eax],al :004B0680 7006 jo 004B0688 All protected files possess the same pattern, with the exact same JMP (coded as E950000000)! This is very fortunate for us; it means that searching any "protected" file for the pattern { 55 8B EC 83 EC 48 53 56 57 E9 50 00 00 00 } will give us the entry point of the program and indicate to us that the program has been "protected" with softSENTRY! (Has your jaw hit the floor yet?) Yes, softSENTRY is very silly. The very insolent JMP 004B06CE points the EIP to the actual protection routine. The routine then jumps depending on the "protection" scheme the programmer specified for use: time limit, splash, etc. Read carefully: 00093C82: 8B4508 mov eax,[ebp][00008] ; 00093C85: 50 push eax ; 00093C86: 68A0324B00 push 004B32A0 ; 00093C8B: FF156C744B00 call [0004B746C] ; 00093C91: E88A000000 call 001279B1 ;THIS CALL LOADS THE RESOURCES OF THE MAIN PROGRAM! 00093C96: E825000000 call 00127956 ;THIS CALL WILL RUN THE MAIN PROGRAM! 00093C9B: 8B45B8 mov eax,[ebp][0FFB8] ; ; 00093C9E: 50 push eax ; 00093C9F: FF15E4734B00 call [0004B73E4] ; (If the protection fails, you will land at 00093C9B.) The two calls at 00093C91 and 00093C96 load the FULL program completely free of all nag, splash, time-limit, etc. functions that have been chosen. If you compare the above source with any other "protected" program, you will see that both calls are ALWAYS coded as: E8 8A 00 00 00 E8 25 00 00 00 1st Call 2nd Call Now we can write a general crack for this amazingly retarded protection scheme. Simply replace the first jump (coded as E950000000) with the code of the two calls, which, again, is always E88A000000 E825000000. 1) Search for: { 55 8B EC 83 EC 48 53 56 57 E9 50 00 00 00 } ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (This is the jump.) 2) Replace it with E8A2040000 E83D040000. Note that the two calls have been recalculated accordingly but remain the same. (Track them with your debugger!) So, cracking a softSENTRY-"protected" application is only a matter of switching a few bytes. I certainly wouldn't pay $695 for some silly "protection" that took me only 10 minutes to crack!

1 0

WARNING: softSENTRY is a SCAM
by qweasd123＠my-dejanews.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Windows developers, DO NOT purchase 20/20 Software's outrageously priced ($695) softSENTRY utility. The package IS A SCAM. Before reading the below document I found on the Web, understand that DLL- and component-based copy protection systems are inherently easy to crack. (softSENTRY incorporates a DLL-based protection as one of its options, in addition to direct .exe "protection".) Also understand that utilities such as Shrinker and WWPack are only useful for compression, NOT protection from reverse engineering. EXE-compressors are notorious for being easy to crack. Do you want me to convince you? http://209.44.62.170/pir8/files/ak.html provides cracks for Vbox, SalesAgent, softSENTRY, TimeLock, and many other copy protection schemes. (Yes, the much overbloated Vbox is now WORTHLESS as a copy protection system.) For cracks of just about any EXE-compressor/encryptor you can think of (including WWPack32, Protect!, and Shrinker), visit http://www.nettaxi.com/citizens/caligo/main.htm. Yes, you can also forget about using Shrinker or WWPack to protect your app's code. They are both absolutely WORTHLESS in that respect as well. Cracks for them are now everywhere on the Web. ----------------------- e-mail: LSD-LSD(a)usa.net ----------------------- Hello out there. I am somewhat of a newbie at cracking (with some knowledge of assembly) but thought I'd try my luck at a commercial protection scheme for one of my first cracks. I will show you how to crack an extremely stupid, ready-made protection scheme, softSENTRY 2.07 from 20/20 Software. Download the trial version (itself extremely easy to crack) from http://www.twenty.com/pgs/dlidx.html. This software allows zombie programmers (who, IMHO, do not deserve to be called programmers if they have fallen for this disgustingly bogus protection) to "automatically" convert their FULL programs to "protected" trial versions. Sounds like a snake oil vendor, right? It is precisely that: bogus commercialism at its very best. (This crappy, $695 piece of junk really is worth only ten bucks. I have encountered far better utilities priced five times less.) Okay, what tools do we need to crack softSENTRY? - Numega's Soft-Ice - a good hex-editor I will not show you how to crack the demo of softSENTRY, because the process is boringly easy to do. (Do it youself! Tip: Delete c:\windows\system\ss.drv and the "magic key" located at HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\{XXXXXXXXXX} to restore the trial period.) I shall, however, show how to murder its weak protection scheme! (By the way, the fact that softSENTRY's own protection is so weak indicates a lot about the quality of the product itself!!) Prepare a test target by protecting some small program like Notepad in order to disassemble the process and watch how softSENTRY "works". For disassembly, we will utilize SoftIce because W32Dasm89 seemed to crash when I attempted to load the target. The protected file and the original file have different sizes. "Clever", you would have thought, as I did, "Maybe there's some encryption and variable random protection scheme inside the target." Well, you're in for quite a surprise. Now hold your breath; THIS IS THE ENTRY POINT FOR ALL PROTECTED FILES: :004B066F CC int 03 :004B0670 55 push ebp :004B0671 8BEC mov ebp,esp :004B0673 83EC48 sub esp,00000048 :004B0676 53 push ebx :004B0677 56 push esi :004B0678 57 push edi :004B0679 E950000000 jmp 004B06CE ; This is a very strange jump, wouldn't you say? :004B067E 0000 add [eax],al :004B0680 7006 jo 004B0688 All protected files possess the same pattern, with the exact same JMP (coded as E950000000)! This is very fortunate for us; it means that searching any "protected" file for the pattern { 55 8B EC 83 EC 48 53 56 57 E9 50 00 00 00 } will give us the entry point of the program and indicate to us that the program has been "protected" with softSENTRY! (Has your jaw hit the floor yet?) Yes, softSENTRY is very silly. The very insolent JMP 004B06CE points the EIP to the actual protection routine. The routine then jumps depending on the "protection" scheme the programmer specified for use: time limit, splash, etc. Read carefully: 00093C82: 8B4508 mov eax,[ebp][00008] ; 00093C85: 50 push eax ; 00093C86: 68A0324B00 push 004B32A0 ; 00093C8B: FF156C744B00 call [0004B746C] ; 00093C91: E88A000000 call 001279B1 ;THIS CALL LOADS THE RESOURCES OF THE MAIN PROGRAM! 00093C96: E825000000 call 00127956 ;THIS CALL WILL RUN THE MAIN PROGRAM! 00093C9B: 8B45B8 mov eax,[ebp][0FFB8] ; ; 00093C9E: 50 push eax ; 00093C9F: FF15E4734B00 call [0004B73E4] ; (If the protection fails, you will land at 00093C9B.) The two calls at 00093C91 and 00093C96 load the FULL program completely free of all nag, splash, time-limit, etc. functions that have been chosen. If you compare the above source with any other "protected" program, you will see that both calls are ALWAYS coded as: E8 8A 00 00 00 E8 25 00 00 00 1st Call 2nd Call Now we can write a general crack for this amazingly retarded protection scheme. Simply replace the first jump (coded as E950000000) with the code of the two calls, which, again, is always E88A000000 E825000000. 1) Search for: { 55 8B EC 83 EC 48 53 56 57 E9 50 00 00 00 } ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ (This is the jump.) 2) Replace it with E8A2040000 E83D040000. Note that the two calls have been recalculated accordingly but remain the same. (Track them with your debugger!) So, cracking a softSENTRY-"protected" application is only a matter of switching a few bytes. I certainly wouldn't pay $695 for some silly "protection" that took me only 10 minutes to crack! -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==----- http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

1 0

WHAT'S THE BETTING ON CLINTON?/NO NIBBLES FOR MONICA!
by STUFFED NEWS DAILY 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

IN TODAY'S ISSUE: 30 NEW EXTRA HOT JPEGS! 5 NEW SIZZLING STORIES DEALING WITH JEALOUSY MAGIC MISTRESS MATTRESS THE BEST OF EUREKA! DO I LOOK FAT IN THIS? BANGCOCK DISCK CHOP SEX SELLS!!! NO NIBBLES FOR MONICA FROM NUDISM TO BUDDHISM WHAT'S THE BETTING ON CLINTON? MUCH MORE! ----> http://stuffed.net/98/9/20/ <---- Welcome to today's issue of Stuffed. To read it you should click on the URL above. If it is not made clickable by your email program you will need to use your mouse to highlight the URL, copy it and then paste it into your browser (then press Return). 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/98/9/20/ <----

1 0

Re: Questions for Magaziner?
by Arnold G. Reinhold 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Arnold G. Reinhold wrote: >> >> One question I'd like asked is whether the US Gov will approve 56-bit RC-4 >> for export on the same terms as 56-bit DES. That would allow export >> versions of web browsers to be upgraded painlessly, making international >> e-commerce 64 thousand times more secure than existing 40-bit browsers. >> (56-bit DES browsers would require every merchant to upgrade their SSL >> servers and introduce a lot of unneeded complexity.) > >Actually, it wouldn't be any easier to deploy 56-bit RC4 than DES. Either >would require roughly the same changes to both clients and servers. > I was under the impression that 40-bit RC4 was accomplished by revealing 88 bits of the 128-bit key in a header. If a new 56-bit-RC4 browser was implimented by setting16 of those 88 bits to zero, would any existing server know the difference? If not, you would get an immediate improvement in security, at least for browser to server messages, without waiting for the servers to be upgraded. No doubt I am missing something, but what? Arnold

2 1

atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: pjm(a)spe.com > Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:13:38 +0200 > Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd) > Personal philosophies are a superset of personal religious > beliefs. Personal philosophies that include the concept of a god are > clearly religious in nature. Personal philosophies that include the > concept of "faith" are probably religious in nature. Personal > philosophies that include the concepts of empirical evidence, > sceptical inquiry, and willingness to reject previously held positions > due to new evidence or argument are probably not religious in nature. Here is the catch in your distinction, the belief in those empirical positions is fundamentaly based on faith. Critical to those beliefs are at least two (any scientist worth anything could list many more) assumptions that can *only* be taken on faith: The universe and its operation is isotropic and homogenious So clearly a belief in science as a method to describe the relations between individuals and nature (at whatever scale) is fundamentaly based on faith. As to your assertion that such a belief system is not a religion, please take the time to review pantheism. It is clearly a religion in that it addresses the relationship of the individual, society, nature, and God. It does so by abandoning transcendence. You really should read some of Spinoza's work as well as William James'. Everything a person believes, for or against, is fundamentaly based on unprovable axiomatic assumptions whose (in)correctness is based on faith and by extension a belief in the correctness of the holder and the implied fallibility of all other individuals who hold beliefs to the contrary. In a very real sense religion is the epitomy of hubris. > The reason I challenged your assertion is that religious people > often use such statements as a basis for further arguments that end up > equivocating based on the term religion. They first broaden the > definition, by fiat, to be almost meaningless and then later use a > much narrower definition to support their ultimate point. I'm not > suggesting that you were going to do this; I am simply pointing out > why it is something of a sore point. This entire paragraph makes no sense. > No, they are not. The distinction is crucial to the main point I > evidently failed to make in my previous message: Atheism is not a set > of beliefs that constitutes a personal philosophy. There are Buddhist > atheists, Universalist-Unitarian atheists, objectivist atheists, > Wiccan atheists, etc. Atheism isn't even a belief, it is merely the > statement of a lack of one particular belief. No, atheism is the statement that "God could exist, but doesn't". Whether one chooses to hang 'Bhuddism' or 'Wiccan' on is irrelevant. We aren't discussion labels but rather characteristics. Fundamentaly *ALL* atheism states: While it could happen that way, I don't believe it does. Which is identical in meaning to: While it could happen that way, I believe it doesn't. > Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the weak atheist > position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not constitute > a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a > religion. The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do > not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so does constitute > a belief. Try to sell that spin-doctor bullshit to somebody else, and read a book on basic logic. > I'm not trying to prove anything either. I'm simply pointing out > some issues regarding atheism that are too often ignored or confused. Hence you are trying to prove that atheism is confused or ignored and as a result is misundestood. I've got news for you, it isn't either. If anyone is confused (and about to be ignored) it's yourself. > Now this part of the discussion I entered to satisfy my own > curiosity. Since it is so far off-topic for this list I'd be glad to > take it to personal email if you wish. Thanks but I don't generaly exchange private mail with strangers. > When you say "more than the > earthly veil" do you mean that there exist phenomena that cannot, even > in principle, be detected by our five senses or by any physical > mechanism we can create? If so, how do you know and why would it > matter? You didn't understand a single word in that explanation of transcendance. There are many(!) phenomena that occur in nature that are not transcendental that we can't in principle or practice experience with our five senses. Take your Machian view of reality somewhere else. As to knowing if something matters or not, that is the fundamental issue involved in the question: Does God exist? We're back to where we started. Signing off. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

4 4

It's Sunday and there's a hurricane coming...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 15:13:53 -0400 (AST) From: Ian Grigg <iang(a)systemics.com> To: dbs(a)philodox.com, e$(a)vmeng.com Subject: It's Sunday and there's a hurricane coming... Reply-To: iang(a)systemics.com Sender: <dbs(a)philodox.com> Precedence: Bulk List-Subscribe: <mailto:requests@philodox.com?subject=subscribe%20dbs> X-Web-Archive: http://www.philodox.com/dbs-archive/ It's Sunday and there's a hurricane coming. We're prepared with the Pringles and Jamaican ginger beer, and are now just watching the action on screen and out the window. One of the things about living in the Financial Cryptography Capital of the World is that occasionally we get visited by The Powers That Be, and flattened in the process. More nuisance than a TLA hate campaign, noisier than professors' mailing list, and more water than a broken pipe in a Cyber. Hurricane Georges is coming to town. The funny thing is that all along, or at least for many years, we have known how to control hurricanes. It was inevitably one of those cold war US defence contracts, run by the USAF. There was some justification based on annoying naval flotillas at sea, although it wasn't clear whether the fly-boys were intending to annoy the USN or the Ruskies. They kept the whole thing quiet, as nobody needs to know that huge amounts of money can be saved and/or advancing armardas can be sunk without using the other expensive toys developed by the other programs. Trials did occur, but the technology failed to make it into the commercial market. In order to hide the true potential, the brass hats put a strict 56-miles limit on the application for civilian purposes, thus revealing that you could only move the beast around, you couldn't really tame it. The real problem with the technology was that hurricanes still wanted to go in roughly the same direction, and all one could do was to pay the fee to the Air Force to get it moved 56 miles up or down the coast. Needless to say, the Generals were surprised to receive competing bids for services in the first live civilian hurricane. After a lot of confusion and multiple contradictory bids being accepted, the hurricane entered, destroyed, and left. As did the Generals, with the loot. This misuse of what were now public funds was considered sufficient to slap the exec order on the whole deal, conveniently making illegal any class action suits over the misused private funds. Working on this problem for some time has led to a solution. Using an anonymous cash protocol, we have built an Internet-based solution for setting the market-driven price for a hurricane path. Conveniently, we have also contracted delivery services from the specialists, those very same Generals, who are now living in the islands near here under assumed names and ranks. Up until now, the whole idea was received with less than religous fervour. Either nobody believed we could do it, or the locals were simply playing on island time. Just as we were about to give it up and retire to banana growing, Georges showed up and contracts started winding in. Market operators have a duty to track activity and ensure that no insider trading occurs (those pesky Generals). This responsibility has expanded into advice for traders of attractive opportunities for investment, either in the future positions market or in our line of lamps, air-dropped generators, and emergency supplies of Pringles. We've also been able to track geographical trends for governmental statistical purposes. Georges was nominally slated to cross the islands at Guadeloupe, but heavy market pressure backed by church collections on thursday night purchased a shift north in track. Getting in early was profitable for the Guadeloupians. St Martins then bought heavily and shifted it back on a close to due east track. Unfortunately the French fluffed it last night by downgrading their alert to a warning, so all the world knows now. Antigua, being stuck in the middle, then bought in, backed up by Monsterrat (who raised funds by threatening the Brits with another thousand refugees). Since then Georges has been yoyoing across the map and the market has gone to hell in a hand basket. The Generals had been raking in the delivery contracts, but have posted an aircraft maintainance alert and tripled the premium. Antiguan alternate government types, engaged in a power play with their legal counterparts, have traded a mammoth contract to have the hurricane move _towards_ them. Unhappy at the Generals' reluctance to fly, they've issued an options contract of another kind on the market operators, that will be 'in the money' if their other contract is not fulfilled. Meanwhile, a catholic mama in the US virgin islands had a little flutter on the market to help her more easterly daughter. Failing to spot mama's anonymous currency transaction form, the IRS have declared the area in general and hurricanes in particular to be a major money laundering effort, and have a SWOT team flying in. At least, the men in black will fly in once they complete negotiations with the Generals, who previously contracted all airports for the hurricane season, and are prepared to deal in exchange for an amnesty for previous picadillos. The market still goes strong, having at this stage traded 10% of the GDP of the East Caribbean. We're prepared for the long run, with defense in depth by redundant UPS and generators, multiple IP and interlocking 50 cal machine guns. If only we could stop our shareholders from killing each other, we could advance our plans to open trading in Florida. Phew. This Jamaican ginger beer is strong stuff, and we're already out of Pringles. Oh, and there's a hurricane coming. El Generalissimo. --- 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'

2 1

GILC Campaign to remove crypto restrictions from Wassenaar Arrangement
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-Msmail-Priority: Normal X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4 Importance: Normal Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1998 04:41:24 -0500 Reply-To: Digital Signature discussion <DIGSIG(a)LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU> Sender: Digital Signature discussion <DIGSIG(a)LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU> From: Richard Hornbeck <rhornbec(a)COUNSEL.COM> Subject: GILC Campaign to remove crypto restrictions from Wassenaar Arrangement To: DIGSIG(a)LISTSERV.TEMPLE.EDU The following excerpt from the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (GILC) Web page http://www.efa.org.au/wassenaar/support/ briefly describes its recent issuance of a statement calling for the removal of cryptography export restrictions from the Wassenaar Arrangement. Further background information on this international Arrangement, and on the considerable international support for this statement can be found at Electronic Frontiers Australia (EFA)'s Web Site. Dr. Michael Baker of EFA is the primary author and original sponsor for the GILC statement. Further information is also available at the Wassenaar organization's Web site, http://www.wassenaar.org/ In principle, Wassenaar is the international version of those regulations that currently place restrictions on exporting strong crypto outside the U.S. All of the 33 member countries agree to abide by a set of standards for exporting encryption products from their countries, for the benefit or preventing terrorism, making international law enforcement's job easier, etc. Individuals subscribing to this list may wish to review this material, and add their organization or association's support to this important campaign. It is timed to coincide with the current round of Wassenaar talks in Vienna that begin this month, and continue through November. Richard Hornbeck ============================================================== The major impediment to the wide spread adoption of cryptography, to protect vital infrastructures from attack and electronic commerce from fraud, has been controls on the export of cryptography. The only international agreement on the export of cryptography is the Wassenaar Arrangement, which wrongly classes encryption as a dual-use technology (one that could be used for offensive purposes). On 15th September 1998 Members of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign issued a statement calling for the removal of cryptography export restrictions from the Wassenaar Arrangement. Since then companies and associations have been expressing their support for the statement. If your company or association wishes to "sign" the following support statement: "We, the undersigned companies and associations support the Global Internet Liberty Campaign Member Statement of 15th September 1998 calling for the removal of cryptography export restrictions from the Wassenaar Arrangement." please write to <signon(a)efa.org.au> giving your company or association name, web address and country. --- 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

financial analysis of Canadian gun controll bill ( C-68 )
by Jean-Francois Avon 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Excerpt from: Cdn-Firearms Digest Sunday, September 20 1998 Volume 02 : Number 597 Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 05:33:19 -0600 From: Jean Hogue <jean_hogue(a)sympatico.ca> Subject: 360 Millions For What? 1. 360 Millions For What ? background: the CFC finally spit out the revised estimate of registration until the end year 2002: 120 millions in set up costs 240 millions for operation (60 M per year for 4 years). - ------ Reference: canadian firearms digest v. 2 # 595 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 19:26:57 -0600 From: David A Tomlinson <nfadat(a)telusplanet.net> Subject: BOY ARE THEY GONNA BOMB... > If, however, it is an unrestricted rifle or shotgun, then it will NOT have > to be "verified" -- no matter how many times it is transferred and > re-registered -- until 01 Jan 2003. Let me see if I can get this straight now: - -- a) re-arrangement of the data set: In order to justify the National Firearms Registry (and the whole CFC existence), the Canadian Firearms Centre came out with its own statistics, having rejected the actual firearms crime figures from both the RCMP and Statistics Canada. The CFC's point what to "prove" that the "problem" firearms were not the legally registered restricted firearms (these were so easy to ban outright) but the unrestricted rifles and shotguns. - -- b) verification: flavor of the day First, the CFC came out with the dumb "fill-it-in-yourself" postcard, guaranteed to collect essentially trash and hopelessely corrupt the entire National Firearms Registry. Second, the CFC announced that after the registration deadline (Dec. 31, 2002), all the 7 million records would be examined to weed out the trash. An impossible task. Hercules did not pussyfoot around with a shovel in Augias' stables. It means that the registration work would have to be redone entirely and taking a corrupt database as the only source of information. At the end of 2002, the National Firearms Registry would be a collection of trash with absolutely no legal value. The importance of "legal value" ? Let's see ... "A Ruger Mini-14 ? No, I surrendered that newly banned gun years ago. Your records must be wrong. No, I did not keep the stinking receit. I don't have to prove I'm innocent, you have to prove I'm guilty. Get lost !" What they goonna do ? Break down the door at 03:00 with machine guns ? Third, the CFC announced it would do verification on the fly. Stuck with sky-rocketing costs, the best it could come up with was to recruit 6,000, then 3,000 unpaid volunteers -- a few weeks before the law is to take effect on Oct. 1, 1998. Each of them would have to proceed with an average number of 2,300 verifications within a 4-year time frame to ensure the protection of 7 miilion firearm registration records against corruption. Fourth, DAT's posting now clarifes that verification only applies to restricted firearms. This coincides with the last few days left before Oct. 1st and a seeming conclusion that the CFC failed to find in time 3,000 persons dumb enough to come mow their lawn for free. - -- end result : - the CFC's own self-serving estimates of 7 million firearms (a case has been made of an actual number of 20 millions) - registered restricted firearms records with the gov.: 1 million ---> rifles/shotguns outnumber restricted guns by 6:1 1. 86 % of registration applications (rifles and shotguns) will be exempt from verification. Brilliant ! A few days before the Oct. 1st deadline, we are now back at square two: 6 million trash records, to be verified "maniana". (Spanish for either really "tomorrow" or "in the fullness of time", the audience must judge which applies). 2. The remaining 14 % (handguns and other restricteds) already on file were ALREADY verified and need to verified AGAIN (but rifles and shotguns only need to be registered ONCE ever - right !). 3. The principle of the day is that the firearms allegedly most often used in domestic violence do not need no stinking verification but the considerably smaller stock of restricted firearms already verified must be verified. Conclusion: For 360 millions, we will end up with a National Firearms Registry with absolutely no legal value. In 2003, a new round of hundreds of millions will be required again to magically clean up an entirely corrupt Registry. No deadline set. Hey CFC, please don't say it. I do not want to be told again that the enire after-the-fact verification program will only cost 85 millions. It really is not that complicated. Either the registration applications need to be verified or they don't. A rifle/shotgun owner is just as liable as a handgun owner to make a mistake when describing a firearm on a registration form. Arguing that the type of firearm changes the requirement is essentially negociating on the principle. (Clinton: oral sex does not count as a sexual relationship). The sort of people who have not figured out yet that a principle is somehting that is not open to negociation and compromise are the sort of people who have no principles. So, in the end, the registration process will have worthless data on the unrestricted firearms -- allegedly the ones most often used in crime and the emphasis on accurate registration will be placed on the other, considerably smaller lot, of firearms. Odd, I thought this is what the government has been doing since 1934. And failed ever since. Do not pass go, do not collect $ 200, lose a turn and go back to square 0. IS THIS WHAT WE GET FOR 360 MILLIONS ? And Allan Rock, who brought us C-68, now does not have money to compensate hep-C victims. - --------------- 2. Question to the CFC: When are you going to disclose your revised fees ? Announced roughly within the same time frame as the 85 million dollar cost for the entire 7-year gun registry (starting from 1995 until the end of 2002). The following base figures are those of the CFC: registration fee: $ 10 initially for "up to 10 firearms", increasing to $ 18. possession permit: $ 10 initially, increasing to $ 60 near the end. number of gun owners: 3 millions number of firearms: 7 millions proportion of gun owners enticed into early compliance by low initial fee: 30% average number of firearms per gun owner: 2.3 (less than 10) First 30 %: 900,000 gun owners, 2.1 million guns: 18 M$ 0.9 million permits x $ 10/permit = 9 M$ 0.9 million registrations x $ 10 = 9 M$ Last 70 % : 2.1 million gun owners, 4.9 million guns: 164 M$ 2.1 million permits x $ 60/permit = 126 M$ 2.1 million registrations x $ 18 = 38 M$ Total tax grab by Dec. 31st, 2002 182 M $ ------- Note that the number of registration applications is equal to the number of gun permit applications because we are allowed "up to 10 firearms" for the same fee. Now, the following secnarios to consider are : 1- the bureaucrats really believed the 85 million figure -- and they were going to bilk gun owners out of an extra 100 million dollars right from the start, more than twice what they actually "needed"; 2- the bureaucrats have known for a long time that the fee schedule they published covers only half of the actual costs of 360 millions. Just as they stalled and stonewalled and denied for as long as possible the true extent of their spendings, they are also stalling and stonewalling on the real fees they will have to charge to cover their lavish lifestyle. I doubt very much scenario 1 is true -- the bureaucrats could not be so naive, the Surete du Quebec itself will set up a staff of up 200 at the cost of 40 millions, close to half the 85 million total. Scenario 2 shows we cannot believe Ottawa's fee structure anymore than we can believe its total cost estimates nor its crime statistics. In a nutshell: - - The bureaucrats could not do it for 85 mmillions. - - The bureaucrats cannot do it for 360 millions. (at that point, only gone through the motions, unvalidated registry). - ---> The fees cannot remain at the original level promised at the beginning. ------------------------------ Jean-Francois Avon, B.Sc. Physics, Montreal, Canada DePompadour, Société d'Importation Ltée Limoges fine porcelain and french crystal JFA Technologies, R&D physicists & engineers Instrumentation & control, LabView programming PGP keys: http://bs.mit.edu:8001/pks-toplev.html PGP ID:C58ADD0D:529645E8205A8A5E F87CC86FAEFEF891 PGP ID:5B51964D:152ACCBCD4A481B0 254011193237822C

1 0