- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: How might new GAK be enforced?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:39 AM 10/1/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Now that the shoe is dropping on "Clipper III" (or "Clipper IV"), the >"voluntary, for export, key escrow system," how might it be enforced? > >Some possibilities: [snip] >(Else what's to stop Giant Corporation from using Non-GAKked software >within the U.S., which is perfectly legal (under the "voluntary" system), >but then "happening" to have their foreign branches and customers obtain >"bootleg" versions at their end? All it takes is a single copy to get out, >and be duplicated a zillion times. Voila, interoperability, with the only >"crime" being the first export...which is essentially impossible to stop, >for so many reasons we mention so often. Conclusion: Government must make >this very mode illegal, perhaps by making it a conspiracy to thwart the >export laws....) If this solution were really practical, it would have been tried already. One of the biggest problems with enforcing anti-export laws is that there is no guarantee that anybody currently within the jurisdiction of the country involved (for concreteness, the US) is actually responsible for a given export. Let alone KNOWN to be responsible. And it's even less likely that it be "provable" within the standards of court cases. Worse, doing the prosecution does nothing about returning the copies of the program to the country of origin, making the whole exercise pretty damn futile! >Any other ideas on how the government plans to enforce GAK, to make GAK the >overwhelmingly-preferred solution? Clipper I was, I think, their best hope for promoting GAK. It would have engineered distorted-market pressure by making it artificially easy to use GAK, hard to use non-GAK. Subsequent proposals have all been weaker, less effective, less practical, and less encompassing. And the "worst" part, from the point of view of the USG, is that it's now 3.5 years after the announcement of Clipper I, and they're no closer to foisting this turkey onto us. Nobody in Congress is under the illusion that the public likes this stuff, unlike 1993 where they could at least imagine that there were no emotions running high on the subject. In 1993, they were under the impression that they could implement their fondest desires with legislation; now the only likely legislation is either anti-GAK or non-GAK. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

FUCK!!!!!!;-)
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It seems to be worse than we thought? Apple and *Sun*? Doesn't *Whit Diffie* work for Sun? Curioser and curioser... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text From: sombody... Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 15:41:38 -0400 To: rah(a)shipwright.com Subject: FUCK!!!!!!;-) NEW YORK AND PARIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 2, 1996--Eleven major information technology vendors and user organizations today announced the formation of an alliance to develop an exportable, worldwide approach to strong encryption. The goal of the alliance is to enable companies to conduct secure international electronic commerce. The alliance was formed in response to demand from customers who are conducting more and more of their business processes electronically. Internationally available strong encryption would enable these firms to send sensitive information securely over the Internet and other international networks. The companies forming the alliance will achieve this by developing modern, high-level cryptographic "key-recovery" solutions that meet the requirements of business and could allow easing of restrictions of cryptographic import/export around the world. Members of the alliance are Apple Computer, Inc., Atalla, Digital Equipment Corporation, Groupe Bull, Hewlett-Packard Company, IBM, NCR Corp., RSA, Sun Microsystems, Inc., Trusted Information Systems and UPS. The alliance is also open to other companies with an interest in key recovery. "Keys" are strings of computer code that lock and unlock data. Key recovery is an approach that permits the recovery of lost or damaged keys without the need to store or "escrow" them with a third party. This approach could also meet the needs of law enforcement to act under the authority of a court order without risking the confidentiality of business data. Modern, high-level cryptography works to ensure four critical elements of security -- Confidentiality: prevents against unauthorized parties from seeing information; Integrity: determines that information has not been changed during transit; Authentication: verifies the identity of the user and the user's eligibility to access and use information; Non-Repudiation: provides evidence that a transaction took place, for example, that a customer actually placed an order. "Apple recognizes and supports the need for key recovery, and we are pleased to be a part of the alliance," said Ellen Hancock, chief technology officer and executive vice president of R&D for Apple Computer, Inc. "We believe that this alliance will help industry lead in developing solutions for secure transactions while prompting the evolution of the Internet as a business environment." "Securing commerce over the Internet using strong encryption technologies will require a common set of standards and approaches to fundamental security issues such as key recovery and key management," said Robert Gargus, Atalla president and general manager. "Once these standards are accepted and globally deployed, public networks such as the Internet will provide a secure, multi-national commercial trading environment for worldwide electronic commerce." "The alliance has struck a balance between government and business needs," said CommerceNet Chairman Marty Tenenbaum. "Allowing encryption to this degree opens the door to the proliferation of electronic commerce." "Strong encryption is a necessary element in delivering secure network business solutions to our customers worldwide. Key recovery is a mechanism that addresses government policy concerns about the export of strong encryption while at the same time meeting growing commercial needs," said Sam Fuller, vice president and chief scientist for Digital Equipment Corporation. "Digital sees this alliance as an effective means to develop open and interoperable key recovery standards." "Electronic Commerce is planned to be $1T by the year 2010 according to experts. The capability to have secured transactions is a prerequisite for the market," said Alain Couder, senior executive vice president of Groupe Bull. "Groupe Bull had been actively involved in the search for a solution to provide a balance between the legitimate need for users to have privacy, for corporations to protect their trade secrets and relationships and for governments to maintain national security. Bull has the ambition to be a leading provider of this capability with key encryption technology, smart cards and its Internet products and services." "HP is pleased to be a founding member of the alliance," said Richard W. Sevcik, HP vice-president and general manager of the Systems Technology Group. "Exportable strong encryption is a key enabler for international electronic commerce and provides businesses with the ability to perform secure transactions and other communications regardless of geography. Key recovery is one of several technologies that will be important." "Key recovery will truly open the Internet for serious business," said Irving Wladawsky-Berger, general manager, IBM Internet Division. "Once businesses are confident that their electronic transactions are safe and they control the recovery of keys, a flood of new market opportunities will open. The Internet is rapidly shifting from a place to browse for information to an environment for conducting real business." "Export controls are a fact of life," said Jim Bidzos, president of RSA Data Security. "The key recovery alliance's approach will allow companies to use cryptography with differing levels of security in an interoperable way. When the alliance implements this technology it will give the user a new level of flexibility that did not exist before. In an imperfect world this technique will at least allow you to take advantage of what governments around the world will allow." "We're delighted to be part of the alliance because we believe the adoption of a worldwide standard for key recovery is essential to solving current network security problems," said Stephen T. Walker, president and CEO of TIS. "User-controlled key recovery systems including our own products have already demonstrated that user privacy concerns and exportability requirements can be successfully addressed. But there must be worldwide interoperability. And it is our hope that the alliance will be able to accomplish that." "The work of the alliance could have a profound impact on conducting international business over the Internet," said Joe Pyne, UPS vice president of marketing. "UPS is committed to improving the movement of both information and packages in secure and time sensitive manners. The alliance allows us to combine our expertise, energies and financial strength to quickly develop standards that will open the door for rapid development of products and services." CONTACT: Apple Computer, Inc. Maureen O'Connell 408-862-6689 or Atalla Gary Lefkowitz 408-435-5715 or Digital Equipment Corp. Patrick Ward 508-493-9441 or Groupe Bull Jean-Jacques Roulmann 33-1-39-66-3970 or Hewlett-Packard Kimberly Daniel 408-447-4587 or IBM Mike Corrado 914-766-1162 or NCR Bob Farkus 513-445-2078 or RSA Data Communications Ginny Kirkley 415-595-8782 or Sun Microsystems Inc. Ray Nasser 415-786-4395 or Trusted Information Systems Homayoon Tajalli 301-854-6889 or UPS Pat Stephen 201-828-6103 KEYWORD: NEW YORK INDUSTRY KEYWORD: COMPUTERS/ELECTRONICS COMED BW0153 OCT 02,1996 --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

2 2

[SPAM] Timmy May's tentacle thinks I'm Timmy May's tentacle?
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May lies, rants, posts off-topic, and pollutes the cypherpunks mailing list with his kinky sexual phantasies. Why is this cocksucking limey faggot dying from the combination of AIDS and the mad cow disease accusing me of being Timmy's tentacle? How could Timmy create a tentacle that knows something about crypto when Timmy doesn't? >Comments: Authenticated sender is <paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk> >From: paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk >To: "Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM" <dlv(a)bwalk.dm.com> >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 17:40:49 +0000 >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT >Subject: Re: [AP] Afghanistan >Priority: normal >X-Mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.31) >Message-Id: <844193561.12763.0(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk> > > >> > And this would accomplish???? And this has what to do with cryptography?? >> >> Nothing, of course - neither do Timmy May's stupid rants, lies, and personal >> attacks. >> >> By the way, your abuse of your native language suggests that you're probably >> a product of U.S. public education. > >Then it would appear that you are ranting here, your post is off >topic, you are lying, and in addition you have posted a personal >attack.. Haha! - I`ve found Tim`s secret pseudonym!!!! > > > > Datacomms Technologies web authoring and data security > Paul Bradley, Paul(a)fatmans.demon.co.uk > Paul(a)crypto.uk.eu.org, Paul(a)cryptography.uk.eu.org > Http://www.cryptography.home.ml.org/ > Email for PGP public key, ID: 5BBFAEB1 > "Don`t forget to mount a scratch monkey"

1 0

Re: Weaknesses in Smart Cards? (Re: FLA_wed)
by norm＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:04 PM 10/1/96, Lucky Green wrote: >There is no way to know for sure, since Mondex won't release the specs, >but just about everybody I talk with that knows at least something about >their system agrees that if you crack a Mondex card, you will likely be >able to mint money. Since Mondex allows transfers from card to card to >card, it may be a long time indeed before the breech is disovered. If I >were a Mondex issuer, I would be worried. Very worried. > >--Lucky I can imagine a protocol that would allow the Mondex card to issue several brands of card that would normally appear to be one uniform brand until fraud was suspected or proven. Then only money passed thru the compromised brand would be suspect. News of the counterfeit brand would be spread among cards by a contagion algorithm. One morning your card would greet you saying that $38 of your cash is counterfeit, or worse, that your card could issue no money to other cards, but could be returned to the issuer for a partial refund. I would not want to hide my Mondex card under the matress for my old age. I recall hearing something about Mondex that suggested to me that the card rembered recent large receits and that money had fingerprints so as to remember, to a degree, where it had been recently. When questioned about the privacy issues they responded that of course only the authorities would be able to retrieve such information.

1 0

Public Apology (this list is a joke)
by Dave Temple 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just wanted to apologize to the list for "whining like a 4 year old". I was upset that I was not "adult" enough to save the welcome message I received when I joined the list. I thought that if I acted like a jerk someone would get upset and either kick me off the list or at least give me instructions to do so myself. I was right. I joined this list knowing next to nothing about cryptography. I have learned quite a bit from those who have actually posted worthwhile mail and would like to thank them. I realize that a public list is very hard to maintain, we have just begun offering listservs to our faculty and we are already having problems. So thanks to those of you who have sent me messages on how to unsubscribe. Once again, I am sorry for the whining.

3 2

Re: ITAR satellite provision
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:31 PM 10/1/96 -0700, Steve Schear wrote: >Does anyone on the list have the exact ITAR reg. text relating to the >exemption for space-launched crypto? I think you're talking about the definition of "export", located at 22 CFR 120.10: "Export means, for purposes of this subchapter: (a) Sending or taking defense articles out of the United States in any manner; or (b) Transferring registration or control to a foreign person of any aircraft, vessel, or satellite on the United States Munitions List, whether in the United States or abroad; or (c) Sending or taking technical data outside of the United States in any manner except by mere travel outside of the United States by a person whose personal knowledge includes technical data; or (d) Disclosing or transferring technical data to a foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad; or (e) The performance of a defense service on behalf of, or for the benefit of, a foreign person, whether in the United States or abroad. * A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching * of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this * subchapter. Most of the requirements of this subchapter relate only to exports, as defined above. However, for certain limited purposes, the controls of this subchapter apply to sales and other transfers of defense articles and defense services (see, e.g., Sec. 126.1) of this subchapter." -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

1 0

RE: LivePGP (fwd)
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In response to my point that refusing to release the source code of his software will have the effect of discouraging its use by anyone with a clue, On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, Ming-Ching Tiew wrote: > > While most certainly you are entitled to express whatsoever > idea of yours and certainly the same applies to me. > This goes without saying. > I am most certainly not a crypto implementor, the entire > cryptographic part of LivePGP relies on PGP. It is taken > without a single line of change from the compiled executable, > which source is available in full. So, the peer review and > stuff are fully applicable. Incorrect. You have incorporated PGP in a new piece of software. How are we to know you took the code line for line unless we are able to verify this claim? Obviously, we cannot. Your software is, therefore, untrustworthy. This is not a matter simply of my opinion. This is basic doctrine in the development of crypto software. Ask anyone who knows what they are talking about. Joe Average may be interested in your product, but no expert, or even fairly knowledgeable individual, will ever take it seriously while the source code remains private. > I am also most certain that you will have a response to this > view of mine. For whatever it is, I forsee that we will remain > holding on to our own views. So, we should not carried on > with this "discussion", for it will not be a productive work. Your attitude distresses me and your ignorance of the importance of peer review gives me pause when considering your potential skill as a crypto programmer. > Anyway thank you for a brief moment of interest in LivePGP > which you have demonstrated. I really appreciate that. Many of us would appreciate it if your, seemingly very useful software, was also trustworthy enough to be used. > Regards, > Ming-Ching > > ---------- -- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn(a)schloss.li

1 0

Civil rights and double jeopardy
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:51 PM 10/1/96 -0700, Dale Thorn wrote: >Once they could no longer look the other way, those higher-level >authorities should have proceeded against the local governments as I >specified, rather than undermining the Constitutional enumerations. The protection against double jeopardy is constitutionally based and cannot be modified by statute, e.g., the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The various civil rights acts, movements, and statutes did not make Congress nor the executive adopt a loophole around the double jeopardy protections; the loophole existed considerably prior to then. The double jeopardy clause is interpreted (and has been since at least 1922) so that it only bars multiple prosecutions (or punishments) by the same sovereign. In _US v. Lanza_ 260 U.S. 377 (1922), the Supreme Court wrote: ". . an act denounced by both national and state sovereignties is an offense against the peace and dignity of both and may be prosecuted and punished by each." Where an act violates both federal and state law, both the federal and state governments think they get an opportunity to prosecute. Thus, racial violence or murder which violates state assault or homicide laws gets a state prosecution; and where it also violates federal civil rights laws (18 USC 241 or 242) it is also prosecutable federally. Ditto for many drug crimes. An act which does not violate federal law (say, jaywalking) cannot be prosecuted federally; this limits the situations where multiple sovereigns can lead to multiple prosecutions. (but with Congress expanding federal criminal law ...) (There's an exception to the dual sovereignty exception to the double jeopardy clause, the "Bartkus exception", where the second prosecution is a sham or a fake undertaken to serve the interests of the first sovereign; but it's very hard to win a _Bartkus_ argument. Stacy Koon (one of the cops convicted for the beating of Rodney King) tried to argue Bartkus and lost.) Sorry for wandering off into legalpunks land but it's simply not the case that the civil rights movement caused the erosion of the double jeopardy clause, or that there's a magic "civil rights exception". Dual-sovereign double jeopardy is alive & well in drug prosecutions today. Civil rights just gets all of the press. -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

1 0

Re: active practice in America [RANT]
by Dale Thorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mark M. wrote: > On Mon, 30 Sep 1996, Dale Thorn wrote: > > Re: Below text. One of the most fascinating aspects of the Simpson > > case (to me, anyway) is how persons who know about conspiracies, > > mafia hits, etc., are still willing to believe OJ is guilty (fer > > sure), looking only at the "evidence" presented by the same folks > > who (send for list). > Information about the evidence, crime and trial are not classified for > the reason of "national security" in this case. True, but what's reported is a joke, just like other media scams. > There's a motive and there is nothing outlandishly unbelievable about > the possibility that Simpson did do it. I didn't say no possibility, just very little probability. And what motive did this wealthy man have to savagely (inhumanly, yet) murder those two people? There are people who have plausible motives, though. > OJ never was in the military and there is nothing that even remotely > suggests that he had anything to do with the CIA. CIA, remotely? I guess Colby, Jr. living next to Nicole is outside the boundary of remote? I guess A.C.'s boss Ippolito, *close* friend of George Aronow, *close* friend of George Bush, etc. is also out of bounds? Ever hear of international coke rings? OJ was up to his neck in Mob, and looks like Denise Brown likewise. Too remote for you? > The Simpson case and the JFK assassination are not even remotely > comparable. Lessee, an apple and a banana are "not even remotely comparable", due to so many differences, etc. But, I can eat both of them, and get nutrition from both, so, they *do* have quite a bit in common. The Warren Commission, and all "official" treatments of the JFK assassination were not based on the real evidence, nor was the OJ trial. If you're one of those people who saw Ruby do it, and you said "gee, musta been just another wacko", then you could look at the OJ trial the same way and say "gee, just another crazy black man", etc.

1 0

Re: White House crypto proposal -- too little, too late
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:50 PM 10/1/96 -0700, John Anonymous MacDonald wrote: >> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 14:56:21 -0700 (PDT) >> From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> >> >> "What?" I asked. "Unless you're talking about import restrictions." >> >> "Exactly," he said. >> >> -Declan > >I don't doubt that they can do this if they really want to, but I >wonder what legal basis they will use for import restrictions. > >Are there any current import restrictions for products on can legally >manufacture, sell, and use in the United States? "Sugar" Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0