- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: fwd from spyking@thecodex.com
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Answering Spyking's questions Ray posted in reverse: The Bronx incident started off as a major CB case, with barricades and plastic suits galore, in accord with the push for scare the beans out of the public with imaginary terrorism (another WMD terrorism trial is due to start in NYC shortly). It turns out that what was found were a couple of take-home, mildly radioactive elements (properly contained and marked) of a recently deceased employee of a plant that used them. The story died quickly. NYT covered it twice, once hot, once tepid. Second, what's driving the nationwide push to train First Responders and emergency room staff is Clinton's funding the program with billions, after he read Richard Preston's recent novel on biological terrorism (so said news reports), and got a few heart-thumping briefings from if you only knew blackhearts. Right now preparing for domestic defense against Weapons of Mass Destruction is the hottest career-jumpstart in the nation, and there's a frenzy of competition passing as cooperation among the military, National Guards, intel, FBI, FEMA, state and local cops, EMS, sawbones, Red Cross, CB weapons experts (US and RU), mercenaries, manufacturers, vets and revolving doorers of all the above, and, to be sure, the never-fake-it media goading and exaggerating (our straight-shooting members here excepted, well, except Y2Kites). Like many state and local officials relishing the vital national security role being porked to domestic forces, neatly bypassing the military's limitations, NYC's mayor is happy as a pig in shit with his plan for a new $16m anti-terrorist bunker on the 23rd floor of a buddy's office building across the street from the World Trade Center -- one RPG shot from the 23rd WTC into his impenetrable C4I nest. Rudy loves to watch "Patton" clad only in a Kevlar jockstrap. Of course, he's a "former federal prosecutor," the most common subtitle on TV of disembodied talking heads.

1 0

Update on status of Pauline Hanson's One Nation web sites
by Global Web Builders 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

G'day One Nation supporters in NSW I am Scott Balson, Pauline Hanson's web master and the moderator of the now defunct discussion forum mentioned in a recent news letter. You will notice that I am not using my normal "gwb" email. I apologise for the demise of the very successful discussion forum, but may I say that nothing surprises me any more. The forum was run on a third party web site and the owner took two weeks leave on Sunday - the day before the forum "shut down". Quite simply it was hacked by an unknown person because it was so successful. This is the face of free speech in Australia. NOTE: The hacker was not the site owner. To make matters worse, last Friday, the One Nation pages went down after the ISP we used, Pronet, had their link closed by Optus because of financial difficulties... we have taken remedial action and hope to have the site fully operational in the next 48 hours at: http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation The last few weeks I have seen, heard of and personally faced a growing number of personal attacks aimed at those involved in the One Nation party. In my case this has included being followed while driving my car (last week) and phone calls from the media wanting me to comment on "anonymous", unsubstantiated and trumped-up allegations that were made personally against me. (For example, when questioned about his call to me on Sunday Rory Callinan from "The (News Limited) Courier Mail" confirmed that they would not normally bother with allegations made on this basis but my role within the party had made an anonymous allegation "newsworthy" and worth pursuing.) This follows the party's success in the Queensland state elections. May I just say that this makes me realise that One Nation is obviously having a big impact on those who have got the most to lose and through their actions they have just increased my resolve to do all that I can to ensure Pauline Hanson and the party get a "fair go" on the Internet even if this right is denied by the mainstream media. The events and incidents against the party will continue to be covered on my Australian National News of the Day (anotd) which should be live again soon (also temporarily closed because of the Pronet collapse) The address for anotd is: http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news The agenda for getting One Nation back on-line and the discussion form up and running again is as follows: One Nation web site and anotd fully operation by Friday 10th July (probably before) http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation Discussion forum (through GWB) fully operational by end of July. I will keep this group informed when the discussion forum is again operational and once again apologise for the temporary loss of our forum in which to discuss issues. Please do not respond to this temporary account unless it is on a matter of urgency. The gwb(a)gwb.com.au email address will be up and running again by this weekend. GWB Scott Balson Pauline Hanson's Web Master

1 0

Gov Secrecy Reform Act of 1998
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We've transcribed a fax of Senator Thompson's Amendment as Substitute for S.712, "Government Secrecy Reform Act of 1998," passed by the Governmental Affairs Committee on June 17: http://jya.com/s712-amend.htm (37K) Here's a report on the amendment and vote: NCC Washington Update, vol. 4, #25 July 1, 1998 [National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History] Senate Committee Adopts Substitute Bill for Moynihan's Government Secrecy Reform Act Senate Committee Adopts Substitute Bill for Moynihan's Government Secrecy Reform Act -- On June 17 the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee met to consider a substitute bill for S.712, the Government Secrecy Reform Act of 1998. By voice vote, with no negative votes heard, the Committee passed the substitute bill proposed by Senator Fred Thompson (R-TENN), the chair of the Committee, and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). The original bill had provided a framework for reform but had lacked the specifics which this bill provides. The substitute bill make four major changes from the bill that was originally introduced. First, this bill eliminates the section calling for the establishment of a National Declassification Center in an existing agency -- which many had thought could be the National Archives -- and instead expands the functions and oversight responsibilities of the existing Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) and moves that office from the National Archives to the Executive Office of the President. Second, the bill states that classified information must be declassified after 25 years unless, as the bill summary states, "extraordinary circumstances" require that it remain classified. The original bill had a 30 year time limit for most information to remain classified. Third, the substitute bill retains the balancing test of the original bill; however, the revised bill establishes criteria to guide agency classification decisions for weighing the concerns of national security and the public interest in disclosure. The national security criteria are taken directly from President Clinton's E.O 12958 and the public interest criteria are newly developed for the substitute bill. Fourth, the substitute bill establishes a Classification and Declassification Review Board composed of 5 public members to hear agency and individual appeals regarding classification and declassification decisions. Once the report for the amended S. 712 is filed, which is expected to happen in mid-July, then the substitute bill will be referred to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 30 days for their consideration. It is anticipated that the Intelligence Committee may hold hearings and may have objections to the balancing test provision of the bill. Since there appears to be little attention in the House to this legislation and since there are not many legislative days remaining before adjournment, it is doubtful that this legislation will pass in the 105th Congress.

1 0

Secret World of Spice/Freeway of Love
by STUFFED/EUREKA! 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Junger et al.
by jkthomson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has dismissed a law professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the export of computer data-scrambling technology. Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which prevented Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter Junger from posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not violate the constitutional right to free speech. The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court ruling last August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes telling the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of speech subject to First Amendment protection. "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption." Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a version of source code converted into an actual software program that could be run on a computer. The US government appealed the California decision and the issue may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court would overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key." Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an increasingly critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global communications over the Internet. But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by terrorists and international criminals to hide their activities, have instituted strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling products. Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court misunderstood the difference between source code and compiled code. "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative nature of software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, but it does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is speech deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D [06.07.98] ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 [05.14.98] ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of tnbnog BBS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, standardized, and understood, in that order =======================================================================

1 0

RE: Junger et al.
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't understand ... Did anyone demonstrate the "functionalness" of any arbitrary language via a scanner and a compiler? Why doesn't Gwin understand that the moment one successfully claims that a specific class of source code is not speech by the virtue of the fact that a compiler can transform it automatically into executable code which performs a function, then ANY speech of ANY sort is fundamentally vulnerable to being classified as functional as soon as a compiler can transform it into real machine code. So today, I can write the following: 1. Find a container. 2. Fill container with explosive substance. 3. Move container to target location. 4. Detonate container. As soon as I have a compiler and a target machine that can execute these instructions, suddenly this is not speech. However, before this compiler and machine combo exists, event the electronic form of this is speech! How could this be? Ern -----Original Message----- From: jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Junger et al. Reuters 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has dismissed a law professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the export of computer data-scrambling technology. Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which prevented Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter Junger from posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not violate the constitutional right to free speech. The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court ruling last August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes telling the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of speech subject to First Amendment protection. "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption." Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a version of source code converted into an actual software program that could be run on a computer. The US government appealed the California decision and the issue may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court would overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key." Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an increasingly critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global communications over the Internet. But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by terrorists and international criminals to hide their activities, have instituted strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling products. Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court misunderstood the difference between source code and compiled code. "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative nature of software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, but it does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is speech deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D [06.07.98] ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 [05.14.98] ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of tnbnog BBS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, standardized, and understood, in that order =======================================================================_

5 4

No Subject
by VICTOR HERRERA 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

can u help me thank u

1 0

MAKE MORE MONEY ONLINE
by info＠homebusinesscentral.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dear Friend and Internet Entrepreneur, Discover little known ways of how to promote virtually any product, service or idea online and see income within 24 hours. Guranteed! It's finally here! **ALL NEW** E-Mail Marketing Home Study Course reveals how to use responsible, targeted, e-mail marketing in your business to boost Web site traffic, generate leads, sell products, and make more sales online. Learn totally new information about how to e-mail your sales message to prospects and sell your products and services online without getting flamed. Discover detailed techniques for using opt-in marketing, compiling mailing lists, the secrets of writing ad copy, and much more. You will learn: How to create targeted e-mail lists of prospects who are as much as 5 times more responsive than names you can rent or buy. Discover which e-mail management and sending software is best. (And Receive A FREE 10 Day Trial Version Of The Best One) Discover which teaser ads and subject lines get your mail opened and responded to quickly. How to use e-mail to generate qualified traffic to a Web site. And Much Much More.... You will receive an extensive step by step course guiding you every step of the way! Plus as part of this national marketing test if you ACT NOW! you are going to receive as a bonus gift: "The Secrets To Successful Search Engine Submission" Audio series Learn how to get on top and stay on top! "I generated 19 brand new paying customers in less than a week with this course" Thank You To learn more about this exciting course please visit us at http://www.homebusinesscentral.net/emarket.html This is a very limited offer, so act now! To be removed from this list please respond with "remove" in the subject field World Tek Inc. 7210 Jordan Ave. Canoga Park CA. 91303 1-818-718-9429

1 0

RE: Junger et al.
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think we are in violent agreement here ... Except that it seems odd that speech is no longer 1st amendment protected as soon as it can be interpreted by a machine to do something. So, then, if I want to deny you first amendment protections for something, I can simply write a compiler to turn your words into machine executable code, and suddenly, your words are no longer protected speech. How could that be a reasonable interpretation of functional versus not? Secondly, Gwin said that encryption is a special class of software which is MORE functional. This is definitely a misunderstanding, to say the least. I don't see how any particular class of software is necessarily more or less functional than other classes of software. In the functional sense, all software, when compiled and executed is functional, period (whether it performs according to its original design is irrelevant). Ern -----Original Message----- From: Ed Gerck [SMTP:egerck@laser.cps.softex.br] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 9:09 PM To: Ernest Hua Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; 'cryptography(a)c2.net' Subject: RE: Junger et al. On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Ernest Hua wrote: >So today, I can write the following: > >1. Find a container. >2. Fill container with explosive substance. >3. Move container to target location. >4. Detonate container. > >As soon as I have a compiler and a target machine that can execute these >instructions, suddenly this is not speech. However, before this >compiler and machine combo exists, event the electronic form of this is >speech! > >How could this be? Gwin has written a phrase which deserves more analysis, IMO -- free from political overtones if we want to be impartial. The phrase can be reworded as: "source code is a device, that actually does a function" The difference and importance here is between syntatic and semantics. Your 4-instruction source code above is not a device today -- it cannot perform any function. It has only syntatics, not the "how to". But, if there were a machine that could supply the proper semantics (ie, actually perform the functions 1-4) then your source code above would be a device. Further, your source code may not be a device today but be a device tomorrow. As another example, bringing together one pound of inert metal with another one pound of the same inert metal was not considered to be explosive -- until U235 was used for the inert metal and properly compressed. The difference is semantic, not syntatic. In that, Gwin is correct. Can the source code actually perform a function? Then, it is a device. Irrespective of the needed platform, in the same way that an electric shaver is a device irrespective of the local availablity of an appropriate power outlet. IMO, even though I consider Gwin to be correct to a very large extent, widespread use of crypto will not come from lifiting such bans ... but from real need -- which does not outweigh the hassle, today. The EFF has a wrong target there. Do you know how much Internet e-mail traffic is encrypted today? Can you believe less than 10%? Notwithstanding the rethoric exercises and limelight it may provide, talking about encryption export bans may not be as effective as desigining better and easier uses of strong crypto -- that can then really drive market, legislation and courts. Need to use is a better key than need to know, it seems. Cheers, Ed Gerck > >Ern > > -----Original Message----- > From: jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com] > Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Junger et al. > > > > Reuters > > 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has >dismissed a law > professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the >export of > computer data-scrambling technology. > > Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which >prevented > Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter >Junger from > posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not >violate > the constitutional right to free speech. > > The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court >ruling last > August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes >telling > the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of >speech > subject to First Amendment protection. > > "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually >performs > the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides > instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded >circuitry in > a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption." > > Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a >version of source > code converted into an actual software program that could be run >on a > computer. > > The US government appealed the California decision and the issue >may > ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. > > Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court >would > overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses > mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it >unreadable > without a password or software "key." > > Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an >increasingly > critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global >communications > over the Internet. > > But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by >terrorists > and international criminals to hide their activities, have >instituted > strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling >products. > > Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court >misunderstood the > difference between source code and compiled code. > > "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative >nature of > software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic >Frontier > Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, >but it > does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is >speech > deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." > > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> >www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh > jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D >[06.07.98] > ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 >[05.14.98] > ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of >tnbnog BBS > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, > standardized, and understood, in that order > >======================================================================= _ > ______________________________________________________________________ Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck egerck(a)novaware.cps.softex.br http://novaware.cps.softex.br --- Meta-Certificate Group member, http://www.mcg.org.br ---

6 5

no subject! Anti-National ID Bill
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Where is this? Stalled. Looks dead in the water. Any further insights? H.R.3261 SPONSOR: Rep Paul (introduced 02/25/98) SUMMARY: (AS INTRODUCED) Privacy Protection Act of 1997 (sic) - Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) of the Social Security Act and the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit any Federal, State, or local government agency or instrumentality from using a social security account number or any derivative as the means of identifying any individual, except for specified social security and tax purposes. Amends the Privacy Act of 1974 to prohibit any Federal, State, or local government agency or instrumentality from requesting an individual to disclose his social security account number on either a mandatory or a voluntary basis. Prohibits any two Federal agencies or instrumentalities from implementing the same identifying number with respect to any individual, except as authorized under this Act. ---- STATUS: Detailed Legislative Status House Actions Feb 25, 98: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned. Mar 2, 98: Referred to the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology. Feb 25, 98: Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.

2 1