- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To the FCC's Reed Hundt, the Internet community is "governmentally challenged." But then, the commission's chairman honestly believes that FCC stands for "Friendly to Computer Communications." Yeah, right. That's what he said in a speech this week. The FCC faxed it to me today after I returned from a Cato Institute conference -- where, ironically enough, we spent a day talking about private ordering of the Net. The concept makes a kind of intrinsic sense to me: who needs government subsidies for Net connections when an account is just $10/month? The first half of the fax was mangled, thanks to the FCC's anything-but-high-tech communications technology, so I shoved it in my pocket and went for pizza with folks from the conference -- Eugene Volokh, Charles Platt, Duncan Frissel, Alan Lewine, Solveig Bernstein, and Brian LaMacchia. We chatted -- surprise! -- about the Feds' future Net-regulation attempts. When I got home and unfolded the fax, I found I could read the second half. It was horrific. While Hundt did say he'd keep the FCC's hands off of Net-telephony, he called for universal service for the Net. Universal service is bad, from an economic perspective, for the same reason that any subsidy scheme is bad: you're taking money out of one part of the economy and pushing it into another. It's also vulnerable to DC lobbyists in tasseled cordovan loafers descending on Capitol Hill calling for more cash. Hundt's scheme is more damming than it looks at first. In his speech, Hundt calls for reconsidering how the FCC will "vote next year on a new universal service funding mechanism." This slush fund isn't funded from general taxpayer revenues. The 1996 Telecom dereg act directs the FCC to rework the payment mechanism that feeds the universal service fund that all phone service providers must pay into. It does things like make urban customers pay more to subsidize rural telephone service. Companies that are eligible for subsidies suck cash from the fund -- and of course lobby for more along the way. Now Hundt seems to want to wire schools from this fund. (And what else? He doesn't quite say.) To replace the money from the account, the FCC has to grab more from phone companies, which means higher phone bills. Does this make sense or what? -Declan (PS: Note Hundt's email address is rhundt(a)fcc.gov.) ********* (Keystroked by declan(a)well.com) Reed Hundt speech excerpts: "My hope is that the power of the Internet will forcedrive our two-point FCC agenda -- competition in communications and public benefits from communications. That's why we've resisted all efforts to bring Internet communication within the out of date regulatory scheme we have inherited at the FCC. "The challenge now is for the govenmentally challenged Internet community to figure out how to talk to the FCC on this subject and what to say? After all, FCC stands for Friendly to Computer Communications. After all I'm the first FCC chairman ever to be on the Net -- so let me know -- rhundt(a)fcc.gov. What should our policies for bandwidth growth look like? "Now I'd like to move on to the second aspect of Hundt's Law, which is that everyone needs access to the Internet, either at home, at school, or in a library. Metcalfe's Law only applies when people can access the network, and if they know how to take advantage of the network access that is available to them... So even if we are successful in meeting the bandwidth challenge, we must still ensure that there is access. [...] "The investment to network our schools and libraries is so small and the payoff so large. Look at the math... Can it be that we have a 700 billion-dollar-a-year information technology industry and yet we can't afford to give every teacher the tools we give every shipping clerk at Wal Mart? Or that we could afford to network every classroom by the beginning of the next century, but somehow we just neglected to do it? At the FCC we will vote next year on a new universal service funding mechanism... The challenge I'm talking about is to provide bandwidth and access to all Americans, but especially in kids in classrooms... [Note that the 'we" paying for the shipping clerk's network is a private corporation spending its own money. But the second "we" is the government spending netizens' money. Guess the FCC can't tell the difference. --Declan] ###

1 0

Re: FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by drose＠AZStarNet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: (in quoting Reed Hundt) >"The investment to network our schools and libraries is so small and >the payoff so large. Look at the math... Can it be that we have a 700 >billion-dollar-a-year information technology industry and yet we can't >afford to give every teacher the tools we give every shipping clerk at >Wal Mart? Or that we could afford to network every classroom by the >beginning of the next century, but somehow we just neglected to do it? >At the FCC we will vote next year on a new universal service funding >mechanism... The challenge I'm talking about is to provide bandwidth >and access to all Americans, but especially in kids in classrooms... > >[Note that the 'we" paying for the shipping clerk's network is a >private corporation spending its own money. But the second "we" is the >government spending netizens' money. Guess the FCC can't tell the >difference. --Declan] Correct. And if "we" fund universal service, then "we" don't want to see anything on the Net about non-GAK crypto, the right to bear arms, freedom of association, chemistry, non-clothed persons, taxes, etc. etc. "We" feel that many if not "all American, but especially kids in classrooms" would be injured by these thoughts.

1 0

G48_bul
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

CIAC has issued Bulletin G-48 on the denial-of-service attacks by TCP SYN flooding and IP spoofing. Two "underground magazines" for intruders have recently published code to conduct denial-of-service attacks by creating TCP "half open" connections. Any system connected to the Internet and providing TCP-based network services such as a Web server, FTP server, or mail server is potentially subject to this attack. Systems providing TCP-based services to the Internet community may be unable to provide those services while under attack and for some time after the attack ceases. See the bulletin below for information on how to protect your site from these attacks. ----- http://jya.com/g48bul.txt (15 kb) G48_bul

1 0

Re: FCC's Hundt calls for univ service for Net, nixes iphone regs
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:04 AM 9/21/96, David M. Rose wrote: >On Fri, 20 Sep 1996, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>[Note that the 'we" paying for the shipping clerk's network is a >>private corporation spending its own money. But the second "we" is the >>government spending netizens' money. Guess the FCC can't tell the >>difference. --Declan] > >Correct. And if "we" fund universal service, then "we" don't want to see >anything on the Net about non-GAK crypto, the right to bear arms, freedom of >association, chemistry, non-clothed persons, taxes, etc. etc. "We" feel >that many if not "all American, but especially kids in classrooms" would be >injured by these thoughts. This is a terribly important point. If the "universal access" scheme is approved and deployed, it gets the government back into the regulation of the Net business. (I'm speaking of the "regulation of the Net" of the sort that existed some years back, when "appropriate use" (scientific, technical, educational, etc.) was the watchword, and casual chatter, GIFs, etc. were called "inappropriate" by some. The Constitutional issues of free speech would remain mostly unchanged even if "universal access" happens, but the government would definitely get more of a foot in the door than it has now. --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Private Idaho 2.8b beta release
by Joel McNamara 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The beta release of Private Idaho 2.8b is now available at http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/pi.html. (Previous beta testers can get an updated version of just the executable at http://www.eskimo.com/~joelm/pi_list.html) Private Idaho is a freeware PGP, anonymous remailer, and nym server front-end for Windows (all versions). Some of the new features in the latest release include: ------------------ Automatic encrypt/decrypt of PIDAHO.INI, NYMS.TXT, PUBKEYS.OUT Automatic encrypt/decrypt of SECRING.PGP and PUBRING.PGP nym.alias.net support Generate key pair command Load passphrase at startup Submit key to MIT server command Get key from MIT server command (must have Net connection) Update remailer info command (must have Net connection) Get remailer keys command (must be have Net connection) Remailer newsgroup header command Delete nym command Attachment support Bug reports, comments, and questions, as always to: joelm(a)eskimo.com

1 0

Re: Free RSA chip
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:04 PM 9/16/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >I secured a 30 page data sheet for the new NTT (actually NLC, a subsidiary >of NTT) RSA accelerator chips. The NLC0048 LSI chip can handle keys up to >1024 bits. The secret key can be stored on-chip. If you want a copy of the >data sheet, email me your fax number. > >Furthermore, I have *one* sample chip that I am willing to loan to >somebody in the SF Bay Area with sufficient hardware knowledge to put the >chip to good use. If you think you qualify, let me know who you are and >why you think that you should get the chip. I apologize in advance to the >qualified candidates that do not get the chip. There is only one (that I >can loan out). I don't want the chip, but I'd like to know a few things. 1. How much of a secure telephone does it contain? a. voice A/D/A? b. modem A/D/A DSP? c. Keyboard multiplex? d. control microprocessor? e. Encryption section? 2. Is there any indication that NT+T has worked with any other manufacturers to design some sort of inter-telephone negotiation standard, one that would allow the kind of inter-compatibility that modems have today? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: IBM_gak
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:17 AM 9/16/96 -0700, Lucky Green wrote: >On Mon, 16 Sep 1996, John Young wrote: >> 9-15-96. PcWe: >> "IBM Boosts Encryption Initiative " >> >> IBM security initiatives next month will include a >> new way to build encryption into software and >> technology that could enable U.S. companies to export >> products with strong encryption algorithms. IBM also >> will introduce several "key-recovery" technologies >> that could enable businesses to satisfy the >> requirement imposed by the U.S. government that it be >> able to access encrypted data on demand. > >Aparently, Al Gore's recent phone calls to everybody who is anybody in the >industry have paid off. After HP, TIS, and other unnamed parties, now IBM >is supporting GAK. Folks, this battle is lost. Domestic GAK is coming to >a PKI near you. So, the "Little Tramp" and the "Great Dictator" turn out to be one and the same... Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Kiddie porn on the Internet
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:33 PM 9/16/96 -0400, hallam(a)ai.mit.edu wrote: > >>Yet another obligatory AP (Assassination Politics) reference: If a person >>is really interested in helping out "starving children" he may be able to do >>far more good by purchasing the death of the local tyrant(s), rather than >>(just) buying more food. > > >The problem is that assasination rarely leads to the installation of >a government that is any better. In most cases it gets worse. There is an enormous difference in significance between the following two scenarios: 1. Tyrant A, speaking outside, gets struck by a meteorite and is instantly killed. He is immediately replaced by his second-in-command. 2. Tyrant B is told that he has been threatened with a meteorite strike by an opponent in an hour if he goes on with his speech, he ignores the "unbelievable" warning, and dies on schedule, just as he was warned, struck by a meteorite. What should his vice-thug do in THIS case?!? Physically, the same thing happened: Big boom. But the implications are vastly different. Incident 1 looks like a freak of nature that's unlikely to be repeated. It leads to very few policy changes or changes in precautions. It was a fluke. Incident 2 looks like somebody has developed a new weapon of practically supernatural capabilities. This difference is why I scoff at your attempts to equate political assassination in the past with what will be accomplished in the future. (other people have made this mistake as well; it's a common misunderstanding.) In the past, assassinations have often led to worse replacements, but that is because there is no likely prospect that the assassination will be repeated, as many times as needed, until the job is done. Partly that's because assassinations were often seen to be the work of "lone nuts" (who don't come around all that often), or because they were done by the very people who take over. In either case, the prospects of a repeat are rather low. As anyone who really understands my AP theory recognizes, getting rid of an unwanted leader will become so easy and cheap (on a per-citizen basis) that nobody would dare take the job who angered more than a tiny fraction of the population. A "worse" government would simply never be formed, unless they were suicidal. >In the past the US excuse for supporting bloodthirsty murderers like >Pinochet, Saddam, Marcos and Noriega was that the alternative was >worse. The _truth_, however, is that the alternative was worse...for the US government. It's really very simple: Let me draw an analogy. Modern organophosphate pesticides were initially developed by German chemists in the 1930's. These materials are closely related to Sarin, the well-known nerve agent that killed people in the Tokyo subway attack over a year ago. It turns out that Sarin is a rather simple molecule. Why not use it to kill bugs? Well, it kills bugs just fine. The problem, of course, is that it kills farmers just as well. Since you presumably don't want to do that, you have to go to all the trouble to find compounds that kill bugs, but are as non-toxic as possible to farmers. And if you look at the description of the contents of modern organophosphate pesticides on the bottles, you see names that only a chemist could possibly pronounce, names so long (because their molecules were so complex) that you often have to take a breath in the middle to recite. These compounds were found by individually synthesizing thousands, or even tens of thousands of compounds, and testing each one. Individually. Eventually, they found compounds which were as toxic to bugs as Sarin is to humans, but were far less toxic to humans. They found the needle in the haystack. Likewise, as I've discovered through AP, it will be easy to get rid of tyrants. The exquisitely difficult task is to get rid of ONLY SOME of the tyrants, for example Saddam Hussein, Moammar Khadafi, etc, and leaving most of the rest behind. _THAT'S_ the tricky part. I have the easy task: describing a system to get rid of them all, with no exceptions. But that's the system that nobody in the leadership of any current country wants to see. That is why you won't see Clinton announcing that he's going to use my idea to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and instead will waste hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in a failed bid to eject the thug. Doesn't that make you feel a lot safer? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

6 5

Lexis-Nexis scare = opportunity
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been reading articles about the recent flap over Lexis-Nexis' P-TRAK database with interest. A recent Associated Press article said that the lines at Lexis-Nexis have been jammed with individuals requesting they be removed from the database. Lexis-Nexis is certainly not the only database of its kind, but it has certainly generated quit a bit of attention and panic In terms of cypherpunk goals, I think this is a positive development. It demonstrates ever-so-clearly that the average "Joe Schmoe" does not follow the government line that privacy and security are mutually exclusive concepts. Rather, there is an instinctive recognition that privacy and security are inextricably linked. Only when the government pulls on emotional (as opposed to logical) strings by pulling out the "if you only knew what we knew" & "if it saves just one life" arguments does the easily swayed public get pulled in the other direction. The flap over P-TRAK repudiates arguments by Freeh and others that American citizens want to give up their freedoms in the interest of security. If you are in a position to influence government policy (ie. Jim Ray with Judge Kozinski, EFF personages involved in the Bernstein case, PRO-CODE advocates, et al.), then keep these clippings handy. Here is a concrete example that our government and law-enforcement leaders are woefully out of touch with average citizens (not to mention reality!). The leap from P-TRAK to GAK is not that large in the so-called court of public opinion. Sometimes monkey-wrenching is as simple as pointing out the obvious. me _______________________________________________________________ Omegaman <mailto: omega(a)bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send e-mail with "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key _______________________________________________________________

1 0

Re: ANYONES CREDIT CARD # per your request.
by David E. Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Date: Sat Sep 21 12:32:13 1996 > > > Note: Lexis-Nexis is only accepting written or fax requests. You > have the > > > option to fax your removal request to (513) 865-1930 state your full > name > > > and complete address. Or mail the request to: > > > Lexis-Nexis > > > Attn: P-Track > > > P.O. Box 933 > > > Dayton, Ohio > > > 45401-0933 According to the 800 number, you may also be removed from their database by sending a letter to p-trak(a)prod.lexis-nexis.com. You need to send your name and address, and probably your Citizen- Unit Social Insecurity Number. dave - ----- David E. Smith, P O Box 324, Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 dsmith(a)prairienet.org http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith send mail with subject of "send pgp-key" for my PGP public key "The world's at stake. Don't confuse me with details." -- Captain America, "Onslaught" ... famous last words -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMkQmnzVTwUKWHSsJAQEClgf/XsSOwYPANaQBXVg+vq/Oh5qgqEMZtyxZ CVy45RYlulXWKMixmWMn7OkebSug53xVfQoBR5SlZ3oCXN+KlQm0bLI1MKiiO0nv SlRz35x6O2lkXXQcyBF1brrk++1uXRQRsKIACh/ceTdMkkTyUk+u0imRschGslqp L84BVvhi/VVASrCgmY5HbwkeeqNlzDUpa5uD9ST10G9UvCMrf6IexEOzvGvfCzmt CFOELYK6e8iiVkP8sPQgj+yQaP08LyezlYuSRu+GcZhr3QljCuOjUghjCIe/aoJk 7RRSiGC/GXGtO/Ut5pOiTOkWmaTPiHUsxnb4cX2lijLyI+jXy5K5qA== =vyc3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0