- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: FUCK!!!!!!;-) The Book
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A new book, "Digital Soldiers," by James F. Dunnigan, emphasizes that information warfare -- deceiving the enemy -- is as old as war, and that the PR-driven media today work closely with the warfighting industry to protect their mutually lucrative markets. The latest GAK PR campaign fits this. Dunnigan also makes hash of the recent opportunistic "infowar" PR, along with adept grinding of the vast, corrupt high-tech defense industry worldwide, led by the US war-prognosticating PR-media-policy lizards. As he says, bad news is always good news for the Hearsts and Rasputins (Responsible Personages), for the liars of brimstone religion, for all the terrifying doomsayers peddling trust-my-god: me, now tithe or be taxed. Dunnigan's sermon: stop the pork, then there will be plenty of resources to deal with the rest of society's ills. Otherwise, peace, real or vitural, is war, sustained barbarity camouflaged by self-interested civility -- the peacefighting, ticket-punching officer, er, journalist, class. Digital Soldiers The Evolution of High-Tech Weaponry and Tomorrow's Brave New Battlefield James F. Dunnigan St. Martin's Press, New York; $25.95 ISBN 0-312-14588-8

1 0

Cypherpunk forgery.
by scallon＠kiwi.pyrotechnics.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I just got word from one of my buddies that someone has been forging my e-mail to cypherpunks talking about the pederast organization NAMBLA. The guys at Penn State where the forgery came from have started to investigate and will bring the perpetrators to a discip- linary hearing. Thank you for your co-operation. BTW: Below is my real .Sig -- Brendan John Francis Scallon When it comes to the net, I'm scallon(a)pyrotechnics.com similar to the thrilla in Manila DROP Squad - Pali-town http://www.pyrotechnics.com/~scallon GEORGE CLINTON for PREZ This country needs a BOOTSY COLLINS for VP Parliament, not a Congress

2 1

Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:09 AM 10/3/96 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 08:29 PM 10/2/96 -0700, azur(a)netcom.com (Steve Schear) wrote: >>Unless we get the strong support of the gun lobby and NRA. > >The gun lobby and NRA are generally against handgun registration, >but haven't stopped it. We're against crypto key registration. >The gun lobby and NRA are generally against machine gun licensing requirements, >but haven't stopped it. We're against strong crypto licensing requirements. >The gun lobby and NRA are generally against firearms dealers' licensing, >but haven't stopped it. We're against crypto dealers' licensing. >The gun lobby and NRA are generally against assault weapon import laws, >but haven't stopped them. We're against strong crypto import laws. If the wimps at the NRA had any guts, they would poll their membership, asking if anybody would be willing to make "the sacrifice" (presumably due to a recent terminal illness diagnosis). Then, they'd get on the phone to the Supreme Court, and point out that they'd just noticed that Supreme Court appoints were ONLY "good for life" and suggest nicely that if all of the above outrages (WRT guns) weren't reversed within the year, they predict about nine open seats shortly thereafter. Okay, maybe it's only wishful thinking, but... If you take the position that all human life is equally valuable, then you must concede that the deaths of nine fools is no worse than the deaths of nine randomly-selected individuals who found themselves the victim of gun laws. Crypto relevancy? Well, the so-called "gun nuts" have already tolerated far more regulation and restriction of guns than we should ever accept. But if we use their tactics, can we expect any better results? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:29 PM 10/2/96 -0700, azur(a)netcom.com (Steve Schear) wrote: >>T[i]m May wrote: >>I've argued since 1992 on Usenet and here that "crypto as arms" is a >>potentially dangerous tack to follow. (Others, including legal experts, >>have also argued this point.) >> >>Given that it is well-established, whether we agree or not, that the USG >>may restrict private ownership of atom bombs, nerve gases, CBW weapons, >>machine guns, switchblade knives, nunchuk sticks, and various other "arms," >>the association of crypto with armaments is potentially *DISASTROUS*. > >Unless we get the strong support of the gun lobby and NRA. The gun lobby and NRA are generally against handgun registration, but haven't stopped it. We're against crypto key registration. The gun lobby and NRA are generally against machine gun licensing requirements, but haven't stopped it. We're against strong crypto licensing requirements. The gun lobby and NRA are generally against firearms dealers' licensing, but haven't stopped it. We're against crypto dealers' licensing. The gun lobby and NRA are generally against assault weapon import laws, but haven't stopped them. We're against strong crypto import laws. The NRA supports Instant Background Checks (because it thinks they're less bad than N-Day Waiting Periods). We're against central government permitted-users databases, and we're against Key "Escrow" even if some people think it's less bad than an outright ban. The NRA supports the politically incorrect hunting enthusiasts. We (generally) support politically incorrect tax evasion, black markets in recreational pharmaceuticals, and free speech for people we dislike. If your lobbyists lose and you have to register your gun, it still works. If your lobbyists lose and you have to register your crypto keys, you lose; that means the government or anybody who can get your keys can crack your stuff. If your lobbyists lose and you have to get permission to make guns, most of the interesting guns can still be made. If your lobbyists lose and you have to get permission to write crypto, many of the interesting crypto applications won't get written - we not only depend on the free flow of ideas, but on people doing applications as a hobby or a small business that can't afford to become Registered International Arms Dealers, don't want to wait the months that such registration takes for background checks, and don't want to give up all the privacy involved just so they can write a bug report for somebody else's code or suggest an improvement. Face it, as much as the Gun Lobby has slowed down the growth of anti-gun laws, they've still lost step by step, law by law, against a government that's succeeded in scaring the public about threats to public safety and in convincing the public that only the military needs strong weapons and that registering everyday-use weapons is just fine. I support much of what they do, and I'd be happy if they supported us, and it's probably easier to get their support on crypto than drug rights, but we can't _depend_ on it. Also, getting public support for crypto is a hearts-and-minds deal; the press generally dislikes guns, and generally approves of free speech, and press support is important - especially since the press's default behaviour is to believe government press reports about crypto-narco-porno-terrorists using assault remailers. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com America's Open Presidential Debate - Beyond Dole and Clinton! <A href="http://gate.net/~bdcollar/bbe/debate.htm">Tuesday, Oct. 8th 8:00 PM EDT</a>

1 0

Re: Flood Warning
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:47 PM 10/3/96 GMT, John Young wrote: > High-Tech Leaders Join Forces to Enable International > Strong Encryption > > See: http://www.ibm.com/news/alliance2.htm This is apparently no longer valid. Is there a new one? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

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

17 Dec '03

At 07:51 AM 10/3/96 -0500, Adam Shostack wrote: >Rich Burroughs wrote: > >| The word "boycott" leaped into my mind. I personally do not believe that I >| will be buying products from any of these companies, as long as thay >| participate in this GAK charade. > > Folks, > Lets be reasonable. Its time to jump on board the GAK >bandwagon. After all, where better to disrupt the music? We need to >start writing GAK software, and it better be up to the high standards >that the NSA sets for itself. > > Once we've written it, and its being distributed, we can say >'See, another broken bit of GAK software. Not even the NSA could get >it right. Our data is too important to be using broken software to >protect us.' > And we have 56 bit exportability in hand. >Adam The problem is that the appearance of defeat could easily guaranteee the real defeat itself. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Key recovery/RSA/Bidzos/WTF?!?
by Walt Armour 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What's up with some of these press releases? Can anyone clear up the confusion with RSA/Bidzos/Key recovery? Here are some quotes: ================= >From NYT:CyberTimes (2 Oct) "Clinton Encryption Plan Is Generating Resistance" Executives of the International Business Machines Corp. said late Tuesday 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, Cylink and Trusted Information Systems. ================= >From NYT:CyberTimes (2 Oct) "Clinton Encryption Plan Is Generating Resistance" "The government announcement is disastrous," said Jim Bidzos, chief executive of RSA Data Security, one of the country's leading developers of data-scrambling software. "We warned IBM that the National Security Agency would try to twist their technology." ================= >From BusinessWire (2 Oct) "JOINT PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT/ HIGH-TECH LEADERS JOIN FORCES TO ENABLE INTERNATIONAL STRONG ENCRYPTION" "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." ================= So is RSA part of this or not? Is the middle quote above mis-attributed? walt

2 1

Re: Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:17 AM 10/3/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Remo Pini wrote: >> Date: Thu Oct 03 08:08:42 1996 >> > >* A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching >> > >* of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this >> > >* subchapter. >> > Okay, everybody, call Estes! We've got some crypto to export...er...laun >> > ch! >> If I get the above wording correctly (unicorn, help me!), it is sufficient >> to put the cryptostuff on a disc in a LAUNCHABLE device, it never says that >> the payload has to be delivered by air. So, just put that thing in a bag >> and get it through customs... (or does "by reason of ..." mean that the >> exclusive means of export allowed is launching ?) > >The launching alone will not cause it to be an export. If it is launched >and then ends up outside the U.S., it could be an export. Certainly if it >is launched with the purpose of exporting crypto, it will be an export. Too bad you didn't support this with a logical argument. The wording was clearly intended to be an exception to a rule. What the wording doesn't include is the "exception to the exception," most likely because they weren't thinking in too great a detail when they wrote the regulations. But if the regulation is "wrong," the fault of that is those who wrote the regulation. (and we, the public, are entitled to assume that the regulation is "right" in its literal meaning.) It appears that the government left a loophole so large that you could drive a truck...er...shoot a rocket through it. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 3

chaining remailers
by scottb＠aca.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Can someone point me to where I can get software to take advantage of chaining remailers for Windows 95?? Actually, can this be done through a Windows enviroment, or do I need to run Linux? /sb

1 0

Re: ADJ_ust
by Adamsc＠io-online.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Tue, 1 Oct 1996 10:26:12 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: >Personally, I think there's a lot of hype about this whole "infowar" thing. >Sure, security measures and vulnerabilities always need to be looked at, >but a lot of the rhetoric is being driven by journalists looking for lead >stories. This is certainly the case with 99% of the computer industry press! I certainly have no problem believing that a group of well-supplied professionals could, with enough time and [political] support, take down a single target. For instance, if the CIA,FBI and NSA wanted to hose the 1st Bank of China, I have a feeling that they would - eventually. I have strong doubts that someone would come up with a non-nuke that could destroy stuff indiscriminately within a useably large area. # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> | http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htp # <cadams(a)acucobol.com> | send mail with subject "send PGPKEY" "That's our advantage at Microsoft; we set the standards and we can change them." --- Karen Hargrove, Microsoft (quoted in the Feb 1993 Unix Review editorial)

5 4