- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Remailer Trivia / Re: Singapore & Freedom (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Jeff Barber <jeffb(a)issl.atl.hp.com> > Subject: Re: Remailer Trivia / Re: Singapore & Freedom (fwd) > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 08:40:46 -0500 (EST) > Jim Choate writes: > > > To the best of my knowledge no phone company anywhere > > will allow a customer to purchase service without identifying themselves to > > the phone company. Please let me know if there is such a beast somewhere. > > Go to your nearest convenience store. It's got something called a > pay phone. Just cough up a quarter, no ID required. Really? I don't think so. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

2 1

Re: Crypto Law Survey updated
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jyri Kaljundi wrote: > On Mon, 8 Dec 1997, Bert-Jaap Koops wrote: > > http://cwis.kub.nl/~frw/people/koops/lawsurvy.htm > Where did you get the information that: "permit from the Ministry of > Foreign Affairs is required for export and for transit through Estonia." ? > I find it pretty hard to believe, because our company as probably the > leading security software reseller has imported and exported every kind of > crypto software to and from Estonia and done transit through Estonia. Or > could someone point me to the source of the sentence in your crypto law > survey? Jyri, There will be some people knocking on your door at 4 a.m. to take you downtown and explain it to you. FearMonger

1 0

Re: Remailer Trivia / Re: Singapore & Freedom
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> wrote: > > I find it interesting that most of the people who refer to anonymous > > posters as "hiding behind" or "hiding behind the skirts of" something > > usually have unlisted telephone numbers when you try to do a search > > for them. <g> I wonder why "hiding behind" an unlisted telephone number > > is considered acceptable but having an "unlisted" e-mail address is not > > considered acceptable? > > > > BTW, do you "hide behind" clothes when you walk on the street? If so, why? > > Got something to hide? Huh? COWARD!!!! <g> > > Public anonymity and having an unlisted phone number are not even the same > thing. An unlisted phone number is to reduce public exposure, anonymity is > to enhance public exposure and secure plausible deniability. To have an > analogous situation you would need to use a *listed* phone number registered > to anonymous in such a way that ANI displayed the number but any directory > search resulted in anonymous w/ no address or other tracing info even for > the phone company. To the best of my knowledge no phone company anywhere > will allow a customer to purchase service without identifying themselves to > the phone company. Please let me know if there is such a beast somewhere. That analogy is faulty. The issue is the (claimed) need to provide an e-mail address when communicating via usenet, or some other public forum. Since the chosen communications medium is usenet (or a public mailing list like this), you can reply to me via that same medium. An e-mail address is only required if I want E-MAIL replies in response to my post. So, in that regard, a telephone number would fall into the same category. I'd only feel obliged to include a phone number in my posts if I wanted people to contact me via TELEPHONE. Sending anonymous e-mail to a person is more analogous to sending snail mail without a return address. It would be a form of one-way communications, unlike an anonymous PUBLIC post where a public reply is still possible. If you want to use the telephone analogy, then what you're talking about is akin to a pay phone that's not traceable back to an individual. ANI or caller ID would show the number of the pay phone itself, just like anonymous e-mail from a remailer shows the return address of the remailer rather than the sender. (For the majority of internet users, calling someone anonymously on a payphone is probably simpler than figuring out how to use a remailer, so the convenience of being able to call anonymously FROM HOME is not really required.) BTW, while this post does contain a replyable e-mail address, I'm not soliciting e-mail replies and I can't even guarantee that a reply to my return address would reach me, due to the uncertainty of 'nym reply blocks these days. For all anyone knows, all return e-mail could be forwarded to /dev/null@somewhere. > Generaly people wear clothes because it is convenient and required by social > mores and legal statute. Exactly. And yet many on usenet would deny that same CONVENIENCE to anonymous usenet posters. Sure, anonymous posting can be "abused" just as people can conceal illegal weapons under their clothing. But the answer to that is not to require public nudity just to protect against "clothing abuse". I guess a better analogy would be a nudist colony where both nudity and clothing are acceptable. And the de facto censors of anonymous posts would turn Usenet into a nudist colony where clothing was FORBIDDEN, or at least where the wearers of clothing were ridiculed and insulted. > Put your money where you mouth is, send your bank acct. no. & PIN to the > list....come on, you can trust US. As I'd tell someone (if I were posting anonymously) "you go first". <g> A couple of times an anonymous poster has offered "if you want my e-mail address, give me your home phone number and I'll phone you and give it to you". Strange, but I've never seen such an offer accepted. <g> - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNI1CDQbp0h8ZvosNAQGFaAf/RrBdyP7JwwLkoudJ/tgS5dUMx+uOxZ1q 29AfX7rVAARcjJeA+6+a+uScPiy0mr9j8faL8+Qd78/jbKiqDRlZoJykrCfievUW /iklLAAI7aU09ctFlFO0ys2qk5CSOEf1UYpWlZu++L47r5A7OwXhAKhJ86Szhg+M LjYHg71dPUgrqLyDTyA7ldsAbFmXE7WyLbWD1y5AeURzOOV4kXlYGMkjduNIZwyj MrQ27L+NiG8+ruQ1eBIdqxtGiieVqzjQk83uLQRBEphiac+I+S7GHTAGo5YvlkSQ SudLPKR+G9UAFMVyRZklwMkmawPifwKYZIVL0ZiMeI/EkWWyPZrhkQ== =Lw+P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [MORE] Re: A Pretty Good Story
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:41 -0500 12/9/97, Lynne L. Harrison wrote: >Citing unintended political consequences, Network Associates - the new >owner of PGP - has withdrawn from the Key Recovery Alliance. Um, yes. This is exactly what I wrote in my article yesterday. ("The McAfee-PGP combo, called Network Associates, has dropped out of the alliance") Zimmermann didn't even know McAfee was in it until late last week. -Declan

1 0

Re: Remailer Trivia / Re: Singapore & Freedom (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: 8 Dec 1997 17:40:04 -0000 > From: Charlie Comsec <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> > Subject: Re: Remailer Trivia / Re: Singapore & Freedom > I find it interesting that most of the people who refer to anonymous > posters as "hiding behind" or "hiding behind the skirts of" something > usually have unlisted telephone numbers when you try to do a search > for them. <g> I wonder why "hiding behind" an unlisted telephone number > is considered acceptable but having an "unlisted" e-mail address is not > considered acceptable? > BTW, do you "hide behind" clothes when you walk on the street? If so, why? > Got something to hide? Huh? COWARD!!!! <g> Public anonymity and having an unlisted phone number are not even the same thing. An unlisted phone number is to reduce public exposure, anonymity is to enhance public exposure and secure plausible deniability. To have an analogous situation you would need to use a *listed* phone number registered to anonymous in such a way that ANI displayed the number but any directory search resulted in anonymous w/ no address or other tracing info even for the phone company. To the best of my knowledge no phone company anywhere will allow a customer to purchase service without identifying themselves to the phone company. Please let me know if there is such a beast somewhere. Generaly people wear clothes because it is convenient and required by social mores and legal statute. Put your money where you mouth is, send your bank acct. no. & PIN to the list....come on, you can trust US. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

5 4

A little proffessional advice required
by Jyri Poldre 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello everyone. Some time (Actually some years) ago there was a discussion about Cryptographic device being devoloped in Estonia. Well now we have some real results to share. I will include a short description with some questions. Hope to hear from you all soon. As a result of scientific research project a team in Tallinn Technical University has developed a cryptographic processor. The first phase of the project has been a success. It ended with a prototype and presentation at NORCHIP'97 conference. Now the team is specifying the tasks for second phase of the project. If you have some time to answer to few questions, we would be extremely pleased. The data could help us to create a real circuit for solving real problems not just one for satisfying academic curiosity :) The circuit is a programmable modular arithmetic calculator and IDEA block cipher. ALU is 96 bits wide and is shared between IDEA and modular calculations. The circuit contains RAM for storing key exchange data, total of 16 registers. Two of them are used for Internal ALU calculations, 2 for storing expanded IDEA keys and one for several small 32 bit variables (cycle counter, upper parts of expanded IDEA keys, raw IDEA keys, & so on). Currently modular calculations length is 768 Bits. We have produced a test circuit and got the following results: Technology: Atmel ES2 1.0um 2 Metal CMOS, standard cell, 50 Kgates Speed: 20 MHz Modular exponent time: 0.1 Sec ( currently 768 Bits ) IDEA speed 20 Mbit/Sec All these results are also at: www.pld.ttu.ee/~prj/norchip.html Now we are designing a new circuit, what should provide some real interest to encrypting devices users. The obvious things to do with the previous circuit are: Add Second ALU, RAM, redesign datapath and use faster technology for Longer modular calculations ( 2*768 bits ) Faster exponent using 2 ALUS in parallel and CRT 100 Mbit/sec IDEA speed In pursuit of perfection we must keep in mind the penalty of silicon area, lower yields, longer devolopment time and thus higher price. Question 1: How much speed would be reasonable enough for both IDEA and modular exponent? Question 2: The second question concerns external interface. What protocol if any should we include into the circuit? The RS232 strikes as a first possible solution for smart card applications. Could there be some other common interfaces that we should consider including into the circuit? Sincerely, Tallinn Technical University, Design and Test laboratory, IDEXP circuit design team.

1 0

Re: Remailer Trivia / Re: Singapore & Freedom (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Adam Shostack <adam(a)homeport.org> > Subject: Re: Remailer Trivia / Re: Singapore & Freedom (fwd) > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 10:55:26 -0500 (EST) > With both Nynex and Bell Atlantic, I've gotten phone service under a > nym. No SSN, no credit references, no problem. > > Just don't call yourself Bill Clinton. That isn't the same as having it listed under the nym 'anonymous', when you can get a phone company to start service, accept payment under that 'name' and keep it that way in their records let me know. Further, with the cross to the service address your anonymity isn't. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | | | We built your fort. We will not have it used against us. | | | | John Wayne - Allegheny Uprising | | | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http://www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage(a)ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|

1 0

Senator to review "voluntary" privacy guidelines
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[So much for the privacy code being "voluntary." It's precisely as voluntary and ill-advised as the Vchip or PICS. All illustrate one point: if corporations don't self-regulate, the government will do it for them. --Declan] ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 08 Dec 1997 18:11:38 -0500 From: Aaron Pressman <aaron.pressman(a)reuters.com> US lawmaker to review info industry's privacy code WASHINGTON, Dec 8 (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Commerce Committee chairman John McCain said Monday he planned to review voluntary industry efforts to protect the privacy of people using the Internet. The Arizona Republican made the statement in a letter to the head of the Information Technology Industry Council, a group of computer manufacturers that unveiled on Monday a code of conduct for respecting privacy on their sites on the Internet's World Wide Web. "I look forward to reviewing these standards at the Commerce Committee," McCain said. McCain called the group's eight privacy principles "a good first step," adding that he was "pleased the industry took it upon itself to attempt to deal with this important issue." Council officials said the voluntary guidelines were, in part, intended to address the concerns of lawmakers and President Bill Clinton, who in July challenged the industry to come up with practices to protect privacy. The council included major personal computer makers such as Dell Computer Corp <DELL.O> and Compaq Computer Corp <CPQ.N>, chipmakers like Intel Corp <INTC.O> and Motorola Inc <MOT.N> and manufacturers of related gear like AMP Inc <AMP.N> and Lexmark International Group Inc <LXK.N>. The guidelines recommend that a company notify consumers of what personal data are being collected on a Web site and allow them some degree of choice over how the data are used. Technological solutions should be employed "enabling individual data providers to exercise choice and control over their personal data," the guidelines said. Companies should also limit the collection of data to what is needed for valid business reasons and to ensure the data's accuracy and security. One aspect of the guidelines that could draw fire from the White House and Capitol Hill concerns the protection of children's privacy. In July, Clinton said protecting children, who might be unable to make "informed choices" about revealing personal information, could justify some legislation. The new guidelines recommend only that parents teach their children appropriate behavior. "Individuals should use their powers of choice in the marketplace to safeguard their personal data and that of the children," the guidelines said in the only explicit reference to youngsters.

1 0

Encrypted InterNet DEATH THREAT!!! / ATTN: Ninth District Court Judges / PASSWORD: sog
by TruthMailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

ABCnews/Nightline on Cyber Terror 8-Dec-97
by x4＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Last night, ABC news once again stroked the fires of fear and raised the boogieman of "Hackers" destroying the goverment, banks, power plants, ad nauseum. Of course, the main guest was from the US Govt's new trumpeter of CyberTerrorizm, "the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection". A full transcript is available. _______________________________________________________ Revolution in a Box -- Cyber Terror -- AIR DATE: Monday, Dec. 8, 1997 http://www.abcnews.com/onair/nightline/html_files/transcripts/ntl1208.html ABC technology correspondent Gina Smith investigates the vulnerability of our nations computer systems and what is being done to protect them from the threat of hackers. Guest: Jamie Gorelick, co-chair, Advisory Committee of the Presidents Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection Jamie Gorelick: Well, there are a number of things we can do. I mean, the effort that has been started already is one to build a partnership between the government and the private sector to work together to know when were being attacked, to share information, to ensure that we have the right research and eventually to be in a position to respond to an attack with the best efforts we can.

3 2