- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Court challenge to AOL junk-mail blocks
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

watson(a)tds.com wrote: > > NetSurfer said: If you know a valid email address on the spammers system you can always > bounce each message back to them. If enough people turned the messages > back on them it might give them the opportunity to experience first hand > what its like to receive tons of mail you don't want or need... > > Doesn't seem to work that well. The "green card lawyers" were reported > to have received hate-mail in the hundreds of thousands. The happily waded > through it all and pulled out a few valid replies who apparently made it > all a net profit for them, apparently. What we really need is to improve > our defensive filtering mechanisms. Someday soon we'll all have our own > personal software agents that will handle all this stuff for us. Balls, the green card lawyers minions ratted on them. The number of responses from interested people was small and the amount of business they obtained even smaller. The cost of going through all the mail, getting new net hosts and such left them with a net loss which is why they are no longer in business. Phill

1 0

EPIC Alert 3.16
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

============================================================= @@@@ @@@@ @@@ @@@@ @ @ @@@@ @@@@ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@ @@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @@@ @@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @@@@ @ @@@ @@@@ @ @ @@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ ============================================================== Volume 3.16 September 12, 1996 -------------------------------------------------------------- Published by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Washington, D.C. http://www.epic.org/ ======================================================================= Table of Contents ======================================================================= [1] White House Proposes Screening of all Airline Passengers [2] EPIC Testifies on Children's Privacy Bill [3] House Panel Probes White House Database [4] Crypto Update [5] Anonymous Remailer Shuts Down [6] EPIC Now Accepts First Virtual Contributions [7] EPIC/PI to Sponsor Conference on Surveillance Technologies [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= [1] White House Panel Endorses Airport "Profiling" System ======================================================================= In the wake of perceived terrorist threats and the mysterious crash of TWA Flight 800 in July, a Presidential advisory panel has proposed an automated system for increased screening and "profiling" of airline passengers for all domestic and international flights. In its interim report sent to President Clinton on September 9, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security provided few specifics, but noted that "[b]ased on information that is already in computer databases, passengers could be separated into a very large majority who present little or no risk, and a small minority who merit additional attention." Details of the profiling system will presumably be withheld from the public on national security grounds -- a substantial portion of the Commission's "public" meeting on September 5 was closed to permit the discussion of "classified" matters. Nonetheless, the proposed system appears to raise substantial privacy issues. The Washington Post recently reported that under the proposal, "the federal government would require creation of a computer profiling system that would examine passengers' bill-paying records, flying habits and much other data to determine which checked baggage should undergo examination by sophisticated explosives detection equipment." The Commission's initial report also calls for FBI and CIA involvement in the development of the profiling database. The theory underlying the profiling proposal appears to be that even seemingly innocuous bits of personal data can raise the suspicions of a law enforcement agency. This point is illustrated by the comments of an unidentified FBI agent recently quoted in a New York Times article. Discussing the Bureau's investigation of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Scotland, the agent noted that, "Almost everyone on the plane, almost everyone you ever met, has something that can get your imagination going. A recent fight, a divorce, a business deal, an overseas connection -- when you don't know what you're looking for, it's easy to see all kinds of possibilities." EPIC plans to monitor the development of the automated passenger profiling system under the public oversight provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which governs the proceedings of the White House Commission. More information, including relevant government documents, is available at: http://www.epic.org/privacy/faa/ ======================================================================= [2] EPIC Testifies on Children's' Privacy Bill ======================================================================= EPIC Director Marc Rotenberg testified today before the House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Crime in support of the Childrens Privacy Protection and Parental Empowerment Act of 1996. The bill would establish basic privacy standards for organizations that collect personal information on children and curb recent abuses in the marketing industry. The bill is sponsored by Rep. Bob Franks (R-NJ) and has 46 cosponsors in the House of Representatives. A similar measure has been introduced in the Senate by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA). Rotenberg said that "current practices pose a substantial threat to the privacy and safety of young people." He described a recent incident where a reporter posing as the murderer of Polly Klaas was able to obtain the ages and address of young children living in the Pasadena area. Rotenberg also cited editorials from USA Today and the Economist favoring privacy legislation as well as public opinion polls which show that 9 out of 10 Americans object to the sale of personal data where explicit consent is not obtained. Recalling the passage of the Family Educational Right to Privacy Act of 1974, which protects the privacy of student records, Rotenberg said there was already Congressional recognition of the need to protect personal information about young children. "No universities have been shut down because of the Act, but the privacy of children's educational records is more secure because Congress did not fail to act when it had the opportunity to establish privacy protection for young people." #011#Also testifying in support of the bill were Rep. Bob Franks, children rights advocate Marc Klaas, and Miriam Bell of Enough is Enough. Marc Klaas also heads the Klaas Foundation for Children which launched the Kids Off Lists campaign. Testifying against the bill were representatives from the Direct Marketing Association, a list broker, a book publisher, and a police officer from San Bernadino. More information on the Childrens Privacy bill and kids privacy may be found at: http://www.epic.org/privacy/kids/ The Klaas Foundation for Children is on the web at: http://www.klaaskids.inter.net/ ======================================================================= [3] House Panel Probes White House Database ======================================================================= The General Accounting Office revealed at a hearing of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on September 11 that the secret White House database of 200,000 people has inadequate controls on access. The GAO reported that the database, this existence of which, was revealed during the Filegate controversy, does not keep track of what files have been viewed by the 150 White House staffers who are authorized to access the files. The database contains 125 different fields of information for each file. Several thousand files included ethnic and political information. The GAO did not reveal in its testimony what was contained in the other fields. According to news reports, the database was designed to link into other related databases, including the Secret Service and the Democratic National Committee. The White House claims that the database is used for a number of reasons, including, for invite lists for White House events, tracking correspondence, sending out Christmas cards and other matters. Congressional Republicans claim that it is more akin to the Nixon "enemies list." The database was created by PRC Inc., a company that also creates databases for the CIA and other intelligence agencies, among other government agencies. ======================================================================= [4] Crypto Update ======================================================================= As the election approaches and Congress scrambles to complete its agenda before recessing for the year, members are continuing to deal with cryptography-related issues. The Senate Commerce Committee delayed its scheduled vote on S. 1735, the Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era, originally planned for September 12. The Committee is expected to take up the measure next week. Members of the Committee have reported receiving a large number of calls supporting the bill. Individuals interested in supporting the bill should continue calling members of the Committee. The House is planning to hold hearings at the end of September to examine the companion House bill. The hearings were originally scheduled for September 11 but were delayed due to other legislative matters. The White House is also expected to introduce its own legislation next week. According to reporter Brock Meeks, the legislation will offer "sweetheart deals" to limited segments of the industry including financial, health care and insurance sectors who would then agree to support government key escrow systems. The systems would then become de facto mandatory. Internationally, an expert committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development is meeting on September 26-27 to review draft guidelines on cryptography policy. The US has been pressuring the OECD to adopt its key escrow proposals as an international standard but has been opposed by other countries and business representatives. EPIC will be hosting an international symposium in Paris on September 25, in cooperation with the OECD, to provide an opportunity for cryptographers, human rights advocates, privacy experts and user associations to present public concerns about the development of international privacy guidelines. The event will feature speakers from more than a dozen countries and includes US cryptographers Matt Blaze, Whit Diffie, and Phil Zimmermann. On September 20, oral arguments will be heard in the Daniel Bernstein's challenge to the constitutionality of export controls in federal court in San Francisco. Bernstein is arguing that the controls violate the First Amendment. Judge Marilyn Patel ruled preliminarily in May that software code is speech protected by the First Amendment More information on cryptography is available from: http://www.epic.org/crypto/ ======================================================================= [5] Anonymous Remailer Shuts Down ======================================================================= Johann Helsingius, the operator of the anon.penet.fi anonymous e-mail service has decided to shut down his remailer service because of the unknown legal protections of privacy on the Internet. He had come received requests by the Church of Scientology and the Singapore government demanding to know the identity of some of his users. In a press release, he said that he hoped to bring the server back up once the Finnish government enacted new laws protecting privacy of electronic messages, "I will close down the remailer for the time being because the legal issues governing the Internet in Finland are yet undefined. The legal protection of the users needs to be clarified. At the moment the privacy of Internet messages is judicially unclear." A list of remailers and other tools to protect privacy are available from: http://www.epic.org/privacy/tools.html ======================================================================= [6] EPIC Now Accepts First Virtual Contributions ======================================================================= Individuals interested in donating or purchasing books from EPIC can now use the First Virtual system to transfer money to EPIC. Until the end of 1996, donations of up to $50 will be matched by the Stern Foundation. Your support is appreciated and will help make possible our continued FOIA litigation, privacy advocacy, and web site development. More information about supporting EPIC is available at: http://www.epic.org/epic/donate.html ======================================================================= [7] EPIC/PI to Hold Conference on Surveillance ======================================================================= The new generation of covert surveillance activities of government agencies and private companies will be examined at a conference to be held in Ottawa next week, sponsored by EPIC and Privacy International. The conference will explore the process of planning and implementation of the technologies, their operating conditions, and the people and organizations responsible for instituting them. The conference will also examine possible technical, regulatory and legal responses. A number of former government agents, intelligence experts and surveillance analysts will gather at the Advanced Surveillance Technologies II conference on September 16th to discuss the use of powerful new technologies being used to gather information. Speakers will include Mike Frost, a former intelligence officer for the Canadian Communications Security Establishment and author of the bestseller "Spyworld." He will discuss the surveillance technologies used by the CSE and its American counterpart, the National Security Agency. The Conference will take place at the Citadel Hotel in Ottawa, Canada. More information is available on the conference from the Privacy International Web Page at: http://www.privacy.org/pi/conference/ottawa/ ======================================================================= [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events ======================================================================= "Advanced Surveillance Technologies II." September 16, 1996. Ottawa, Canada. Sponsored by EPIC and Privacy International. Contact: http://www.privacy.org/pi/conference/ottawa/ or email pi(a)privacy.org. "Privacy Beyond Borders", 18th International Privacy and Data Protection Conference. September 18-20, 1996. Ottawa, Canada. Sponsored by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. Contact: jroy(a)fox.nstn.ca or http://infoweb.magi.com/~privcan/ "Regulation or Private Ordering? The Future of the Internet." September 20, 1996. Washington, DC. Sponsored by the CATO Institute. Contact: R. Scott Wallis, (202) 789-5296. "The Public Voice and the Development of International Cryptography Policy." September 25, 1996. Paris, France. Sponsored by EPIC. Contact: rotenberg(a)epic.org. "The 2nd International Conference & Exhibit on Doing Business Securely on the Information Highway." September 30 - October 1, 1996. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Contact: http://www.ecworld.org/Conferences/2nd_Security/ menu.html. "Managing Privacy in Cyberspace and Across National Borders." October 8-10, 1996. Washington, DC. Sponsored by Privacy and American Business. Contact: Lorrie Sherwood, (201) 996-1154. "The Information Society: New Risks & Opportunities in Privacy," October 17-18, 1996. Bruxelles, Belgium. Sponsored by the European Parliament. Contact: http://www.droit.fundp.ac.be/privacy96.html "Communications Unleashed - What's at Stake? Who Benefits? How to Get Involved!" October 19-20, 1996. Washington DC. Sponsored by CPSR and Georgetown University. Contact: phyland(a)aol.com. "19th National Information Systems Security Conference." October 22-25, 1996. Baltimore, MD. Sponsored by NSA & NIST. Contact: Tammy Grice (301) 948-2067. "Eurosec'97, the Seventh Annual Forum on Information Systems Quality and Security." March 17-19. 1997. Paris, France. Sponsored by XP Conseil. Contact: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/eurosec/ (Send calendar submissions to alert(a)epic.org) ======================================================================= The EPIC Alert is a free biweekly publication of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. To subscribe, send email to epic-news(a)epic.org with the subject: "subscribe" (no quotes). Back issues are available via http://www.epic.org/alert/ ======================================================================= The Electronic Privacy Information Center is a public interest research center in Washington, DC. It was established in 1994 to focus public attention on emerging privacy issues such as the Clipper Chip, the Digital Telephony proposal, national id cards, medical record privacy, and the collection and sale of personal information. EPIC is sponsored by the Fund for Constitutional Government, a non-profit organization established in 1974 to protect civil liberties and constitutional rights. EPIC publishes the EPIC Alert, pursues Freedom of Information Act litigation, and conducts policy research. For more information, email info(a)epic.org, HTTP://www.epic.org or write EPIC, 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington, DC 20003. +1 202 544 9240 (tel), +1 202 547 5482 (fax). If you'd like to support the work of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, contributions are welcome and fully tax-deductible. Checks should be made out to "The Fund for Constitutional Government" and sent to EPIC, 666 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Suite 301, Washington DC 20003. Your contributions will help support Freedom of Information Act and First Amendment litigation, strong and effective advocacy for the right of privacy and efforts to oppose government regulation of encryption and funding of the National Wiretap Plan. Thank you for your support. ---------------------- END EPIC Alert 3.16 -----------------------

1 0

Re: Nonsense, absolute nonsense... [Fwd: HipCrime and Spam]
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About: 12 Sep 96 at 17:48, Rabid Wombat wrote: > > > > These people have invited the email, and the associated expense, by placing > > a public email-to: button on their public www page. Correct! > > However, since others may think like you, I guess I'll have to add a line > above my link stating that email not related to the purpose of my site > will be happily proof-read at the rate of $200 per hour, Just great. That sure takes away any anonymity you had about being "on the cutting edge" of the information age. That 1952 "proof-read" crap went out in the 70's. How can you hope to enforce it? It's a joke, right? :) Maybe not, since it's on your sig-line. > > A more acurate analogy, > > and to the point, would be if a business sends you a postage pre-paid > > business reply card, that is blank, and invites your comments on the card. > > They can hardly complain of the expense when people actually send it in, > > even if they don't like the comments. > > No, this b.s. is more like having someone put a dead skunk in my mailbox, > with no return address, trying to prevent me from sending them 100 dead > skunks as a return favor. And about as welcome. > Sorry, Wombat. As much as I hate to agree with this multi level long distance phone company spammer. He is right. A website is an open invitation to comment and e-mail. Better password your site if you want to solve this problem. Then no-one can visit it, and no-one can send out a spider to get your e-mail address. That's what I do, send out a robot to bring back e-mail addresses. Of course I only send to makers of software, and my product applys to their world. If you don't want spam in your mail box: 1. Don't have a website or don't put your e-mail address on your website 2. Don't post to newsgroups 3. Don't post to mailing lists 4. If you post do so anonymously Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

5 5

Observer's defense of "Internet Pornography" article
by Martin Minow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

If you haven't overdosed on the Observer articles yet, you can read their defense on http://www.observer.co.uk -- it is rather self-serving, but it could have been worse. The only revelation is that Demon (the major Internet provider) plans to block access to some newsgroups/sites. Also, assuming I read between the lines correctly, Demon receives three billion (with a "b") e-mail messages per day. I can never remember whether British usage is "thousand million," or "million million", but the numbers seem a bit large in any case. Perhaps they mean "3 billion bytes of e-mail." (Assume ten million Demon subscribers and three thousand million e-mail messages. This implies that the average subscriber receives 300 e-mail messages per day. Are they all subscribing to Cypherpunks?) Some other numbers: -- 180,000 newsgroup articles received per-day (per server). -- "tens of terabytes of data, (each equivalent to 750,000 floppy disks) move across a network of about 10 million machines." This seesm to refer to all of the Internet. Martin Minow minow(a)apple.com

2 1

Re: mailing lists
by Ross Wright 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Or About: 12 Sep 96 at 18:11, Rabid Wombat wrote: > > > more restricted. I'm personally against needing to pay the social costs of > > more and more laws because someone is trying to make a buck any way he > > can, regardless of the costs and annoyances to others. > > > > Junk faxing was a blessedly short term fad, one that had to be legislated > > > > I'm completely in favor of allowing junk email, as long as "JUNK MAIL" is > > required to be the first thing on the subject line. PLONK! ... but that > > will take yet another law ... > Wombat: If you are "against needing to pay the social costs of more and more laws" Then how come you want another one? > IE," as long as "JUNK MAIL" is required to be the first thing on > the subject line. PLONK! >... but that will take yet another law > > ... "! One more law to pay for, one foot in the door for the government. Don't call for new legislation in order to not get spam! Please. Ross =========== Ross Wright King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia Voice: 415-206-9906

1 0

Fed appellate judge remarks re anonymity, free speech on the net
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Daily Journal, a LA/SF legal newspaper had an article today (9/12) about a lunchtime address given by Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski last Monday at an Internet Law Symposium in Seattle. The article quotes Kozinski as saying "I have a severe problem with anonymous E-mailers . . . You don't have a right to walk up to somebody's door and knock with a bag over your head." The article says Kozinski likened anonymous E-mail to menacing someone. Kozinski also suggested that computer-generated or morphed images of children involved in sexual acts may not be protected under the Constitution because of ongoing trauma to the child, while computer-generated or morphed images of adults would be protected. The article says that Kozinski was skeptical that he or other federal judges necessarily agreed with the 3rd Circuit's ruling in _ACLU v. Reno_ (finding the CDA unconstitutional). Kozinski is considered relatively conservative and relatively libertarian, as 9th Circuit judges go. Copies of the Daily Journal should be available at larger newsstands in CA; interested parties might try DeLauer's on Broadway near 14th St in Oakland if you're in my neck of the woods. (They usually have extras for the preceding week or so.) Also try Barnes & Noble in Santa Monica or the newsstand whose name escapes me in Westwood, if you're down there. (Also in today's news, the 9th Circuit upheld a CA statute forbidding sales of material considered "harmful to minors" from vending machines.) -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

2 1

who can count?
by HipCrime 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> No, this b.s. is more like having someone put a dead skunk in my > mailbox, with no return address, trying to prevent me from sending > them 100 dead skunks as a return favor. And about as welcome. 100 dead skunks in exchange for ONE is exactly what this discussion is all about. You CypherWIMPS just love over-kill. EmailRobot sent ONE message to EACH address. Are you guys so unskilled in arithmetic to understand the difference between 1 and 100? One message is NOT spam, 100 messages to a single box IS spamming. -- HTTP://www.HIPCRIME.com

4 3

Re: SPL -- Suspicious Persons List
by Hallam-Baker 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy C. May wrote: > > Digitaltronics Corporation V.P of Human Relations: "Joe, thanks for coming > in this morning. I'm sure you're busy, so I'll make this as short as > possible. OK with you?" > > Joseph Shlubsky, Programmer: "Uh, sure." <nervously> Yeah, thats why we Europeans have labour laws that prevent Digitaltronics from doing any such thing without getting sued from here to eternity. Pity you guys missed out on the idea of trades unions and think that employment is some kind of serfdom in which you loose all your rights the day you sign up. If you hadn't sold your government to the cooprorations a while back you might have got out of the middle ages. I suspect that even under the weak as dishwater employment laws that you have in the US would provide ample opportunity to file a countersuit. When that type of thing happens, they don't give the reason, they do it behind closed doors. How do you fight that? Phill

5 4

"Unwanted Mail"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:48 PM 9/12/96, Rabid Wombat wrote: >> >> These people have invited the email, and the associated expense, by placing >> a public email-to: button on their public www page. > > >Most people put up an "email to:" button on a public page for >communications related to what's on the page. It's quite a stretch to >assume that this invites any and all email from anyone who cares to send >whatever they want. I can't say I've ever seen one that said "Please send >SPAM(tm) to:" ... But to attempt to define "SPAM" (unless you're Armour) is dangerous. This whole notion of "unwanted mail" is ill-defined and not something "the law" should get involved in, in my view. (And CP technologies certainly are consistent with this, e.g., placing the role of screening on those who set up gates, not on tracking down True Names for prosecution.) >However, since others may think like you, I guess I'll have to add a line >above my link stating that email not related to the purpose of my site >will be happily proof-read at the rate of $200 per hour, 1 hour per 60 >lines, minimum. Perhaps I'll get lucky. If I get a big enough chunk of >SPAM(tm), it might be worth the costs of breaking down the anonymity. As the legal eagles will tell you, the essence of a contract is a two-way agreed upon set of terms, not a one-way "if you send me mail I decide I don't want, you will have incurred a charge of $1000." Try enforcing your $200 an hour "proofreading charge" in any court in the land. (I've been saying this thing for several years. Who knows, maybe Rabit Wombat was the first to use it. Whatever, it's as unenforceable and meaningless now as it was several years ago.) >No, this b.s. is more like having someone put a dead skunk in my mailbox, >with no return address, trying to prevent me from sending them 100 dead >skunks as a return favor. And about as welcome. In the case of actual USPS mailboxes, there are laws which prevent others from using them (e.g., no UPS or FedEx deliveries). For sure, dead skunks can be placed in mailboxes, or under porches, or whatever. The law can't fix everything. --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."

3 2

Unrequested mail from Mr. Babayco
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:28 AM 9/13/96, Z.B. wrote: >It doesn't matter if you get one or one hundred messages - both are still >annoying as hell. If I wanted whatever you're advertising or selling, >I'd come look for it. I'd prefer that you not mail me. Mr. Babayco, I did not request your mail to me, and I am annoyed at having received it. I am not interested in the views you are advertising or selling, and I'd prefer that you not mail me. To make me whole, I demand that you send me $125 for this occurrence, and $125 for each future occurrence. Have a nice day. --Timothy C. May cc: Law firm of Canker, Sleazewell, and M. Dooza (sauce for the gander?)

2 1