- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Export laws don't just affect crypto
by Dustbin Freedom Remailer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996, Roger Williams wrote: > Umm, so are you violating ITAR if you *use* these GPS-guided missiles > outside the US? ;-) Or how about if you launch a defective missile, GPS-guided, and the firing circuitry just happens to be misprogrammed so that it won't detonate, and the GPS module just happens to be very modular and easily recovered for use in another project? Maybe this missile could be carrying a crypto-CD, put there as a joke by an unknown employee.

1 0

The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. --Constitution of the United States of America, Amendment II, 1791 I'm not a consitiutional scholar, but it seems to me that since the government has already classed crypto as arms via ITAR and since the I am guaranteed the right to bear arms I choose to bear the crypto of my choice as part of my arsonal. The founding father's believed that the citizen's right to arms is all that may ultimately stand in the path of a government no longer duly constituted. In such a case a manditory GAK system could render all but the government's crypto impotent, disarming the populace of this valuable weapon. I therefore propose that since only strong crypto may be secure against the government in such a circumstances the government may not deny me the right to keep and bear the strong crypto of my choosing, unless I use it for criminal purpose. Futher in order that citizen militias employing strong crypto be well regulated (e.g., well maintained) the practice of using strong crypto by such citizens must be regular and wide spread. -- Steve PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Snoop Daty Data | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Grinder | Voice: 1-702-655-2877 Sacred Cow Meat Co. | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 7075 W. Gowan Road, #2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Just say NO to prescription DRUGS. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." -- C.S. Lewis "Surveillence is ultimately just another form of media, and thus, potential entertainment." -- G. Beato

3 2

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

17 Dec '03

At 04:09 AM 10/2/96 -0700, Declan McCullagh wrote: >Just woke up -- got up early today to head to ACLU Supreme Court >briefing -- but it strikes me that receiving nonescrowed crypto >through the mail might be like receiving kiddie porn. > >Import restrictions, of course, will come with mandatory domestic key >escrow. >-Declan I don't intend to be over-optimistic, but I think there was a good reason that even in the Clipper I proposal, it was (at least) _called_ "voluntary." However much they'd like to make it mandatory, they know that this wouldn't fly. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Forwarded mail....
by Black Unicorn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

This was cute. -- I hate lightning - finger for public key - Vote Monarchist unicorn(a)schloss.li ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 11:39:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Mail AutoResponder <abusebot(a)answerme.com> To: black unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> Please do not send messages to this autoresponder using foul language.

1 0

Your Majordomo request results: unsubscribe my ass
by Tom Lojewski 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I had sent this one in also... >Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 20:11:21 -0700 (PDT) >To: lojewski(a)switzerland-c.it.earthlink.net >From: Majordomo(a)toad.com >Subject: Your Majordomo request results: unsubscribe my ass >Reply-To: Majordomo(a)toad.com > >-- > >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> unsubscribe cypherpunks lojewski(a)germany-c.it.earthlink.net >Your request to Majordomo(a)toad.com: > > unsubscribe cypherpunks lojewski(a)germany-c.it.earthlink.net > >has been forwarded to the owner of the "cypherpunks" list for approval. >This could be for any of several reasons: > > You might have asked to subscribe to a "closed" list, where all new > additions must be approved by the list owner. > > You might have asked to subscribe or unsubscribe an address other than > the one that appears in the headers of your mail message. > >When the list owner approves your request, you will be notified. > >If you have any questions about the policy of the list owner, please >contact "cypherpunks-approval(a)toad.com". > > >Thanks! > >Majordomo(a)toad.com >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> >Your request of Majordomo was: >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------- >END OF COMMANDS > > --------------------------------------------------------- Tom Lojewski - ProNet Consulting - lojewski(a)earthlink.net

1 0

Censorship?
by camcc＠abraxis.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What say ye?? :From: Zimm2(a)gnn.com (Zimm2) :Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp :Subject: Cypherpunks engaged in censorship? :Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 08:39:50 : :It has come to my attention that Cypherpunks no longer allows users of :Microsoft browsers to access their archives. : :Is it contradictory for an organization who proclaims an interest in the free :exchange of ideas through the mechanism of the Internet to limit the exchange :of ideas using an individual's software decisions as the criteria? : :Are issues of annonymity and privacy and the encouragement of private use of :powerful encryption and remailer tools secondary to and less important than a :crusade against a software manufacturer? : :Should corporate users of the Internet or individuals unable to access the :Internet through any other means than corporate or public computers be denied :access to information because the computer owner insists on a particular, and :freely chosen software package? : :Will the Internet continue in the direction of propagating propaganda or will :the original rule of releasing all information to the public and letting the :public decide be the rule of the Internet? : :I, of course, know my own feelings on these issues but want to know how far :out of the pale I am. :

1 0

No Subject
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Some idiot said, > who cypherpunks Heh. Sorry guys. I was testing to see if toad was up or not. Of course, I should have sent it to majordomo, right? ;-) Cheers, Bob

1 0

Re: NYT on IBM GAK
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:26 AM 10/2/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: > > >On Wed, 2 Oct 1996, John Young wrote: > >> The New York Times, October 2, 1996, pp. D1, D8. >> Executives of the International Business Machines >> Corporation said late yesterday that they were still lining >> up the final list of companies in the alliance. Those >> involved will include Digital Equipment and smaller >> data-security companies including RSA Data Security, Cylink >> and Trusted Information Systems. > >We are in deep trouble. >--Lucky Wouldn't a letter-writing campaign be in order here? How often do these companies get protest letters? Generally, my experience has been that people actually listen to such objections, if for no other reason than they are usually so rare. The moment I first heard of "Clipper," I looked up the manufacturer of the "Clipper" microprocessor (assuming that there was a connection) and called that company, fully prepared to "ream them a new one!" It turned out that they had nothing to do with the chip, etc, appreciated my call, and were entirely sympathetic. While that was an uninvolved company, I think it's likely that some corporate decisions are based on the assumption that the public won't notice. Give them enough feedback and they'll react. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Utah as a Religious Police State
by Deana Holmes 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 2 Oct 96 at 8:47, John C. Randolph wrote: > > Moroni says: > > >I never cease to be surprised by the interest that gentiles show > >in working mormon communities while totally neglecting their own > >failing areas. > > I don't do a lot of nit-picking on this mailing list, but: > > I am a Jew. *You* are a gentile. So are all the rest of the mormons. > Get this point straight. Uh, in Utah, Jews are Gentiles. No lie. Deana Deana M. Holmes April 1996 poster child for clueless $cientology litigiousness alt.religion.scientology archivist since 2/95 mirele(a)xmission.com

3 3

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

17 Dec '03

At 08:55 PM 10/1/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 8:32 PM -0800 10/1/96, jim bell wrote: >>At 09:39 AM 10/1/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > >>>(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. > >And just what would you call PGP? The "impractical" I was referring to is the impracticality of the government implementing and enforcing restrictions on communications using (non-GAK) crypto. The only place this seems to exist is in ham radio. The crypto itself is eminently practical, as the PGP example makes absolutely clear. >Long before the MIT deal, people in the U.S. were using their "OK in >America" (not counting RSADSI's issues) software to communicate with >"illegally exported" copies in foreign lands. > >This model--leaking a U.S. version and then communicating freely between >U.S. sites and the "leakee" sites--worked for PGP. I believe the USG fears >this will happen again. > >Hence my speculation that they may try to illegalize the mere communication >with an offending product. "I predict they won't be able to do it." Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0