- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: But what about the poor?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:55 PM 7/2/96 -0700, Martin Minow wrote: >Jim Bell wants to get rich running a key escrow business (:-) >> >>Oh, but what a business opportunity! I assume a floppy can hold 1000 keys. >>Even if I undercut the going rate of $200 per year by a factor of 10, that's >>a potential income of $20,000 per floppy per year. A box of 20 floppies on >>the shelf, and I'm set for life! >> >Add in the cost of a bank vault I'm assuming that the keys are, themselves, encrypted. > and the ability to provide any key >to an approved law enforcement agency (i.e., one that provides you with >a legitimate search warrant for the key) with a 2 hour response time >(24/7/365). Easy solution! Make 'em show up at the front door. It'd cut down on the requests, I'd say... This would be an excellent way of getting around the "response time" requirement: The time the cops take to actually arrive and request the key is THEIR time, not that of the escrow agent. Locate the escrow agent in Encampment, Wyoming, and see how many can find it! > Also, you will have to take in keys as they are provided. However, this raises an interesting question: Can key-escrow agents change the terms of their operation to delete such responses (or slow them...) for the cops? Or, for that matter, can they charge the cops an arm and a leg for the key? (Say, $100,000 per?) Another question: The cops probably assume that the escrow agent is NOT going to inform the key holder that the key has been delivered. But if the stated policy of the escrow agent is that the key owner MUST be informed, what are the cops gonna do about it? Further, how are the cops going to evidence the existence of a valid warrant? (As opposed to a forgery?) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: Net and Terrorism.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 04:13 PM 7/2/96 -0500, snow wrote: >On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, snow wrote: >> Cause disturbances in certain parts of certain cities, then attack >> the 911 system to route officers and firemen to _wealthy_ neigborhoods at >> the expense of the poor neighborhoods. Then complain to the papers about >> it. >> >> Gain control of the power grid (I don't know how possible this is) >> and selectively brown out certain sections of the city during peak demand >> periods. Make it obvious, then do the preceeding idea. >> >> In all of these people will, or could die, but are much more >> effective in undermining the faith people have in the structures that run >> the country. If a bomb blast goes off, people get pissed off at the bomb >> makers, if the power fails, people get pissed at the electrical company. >> If you can create a large enough disturbances they will be better than >> bombs. Hey, great job Chris! Saw the news reports on the national news! B^) Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: hard drive encryption
by AwakenToMe＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

you told him to take his hard drive with him. but me on the other hand am wondering because I want my drive secure from everyone. While im here and not here. And Im definitely not going to take myt drive everywhere hehehe Sooo what other programs are out there?? Any shareware versiob..trials..etc.. that anyone knows any WWW sites of? Tanks!

1 0

Re: The Net and Terrorism
by John Deters 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 03:44 PM 6/30/96 -0700, you wrote: >in reality. it seems to me no nation-state has ever experimented with >trying to take away the root causes of violence and discontent. But here in the U.S., we ARE trying to take them away via the educational system. About the only thing we can effectively do is to provide more educational opportunities that denounce violence, racism, hate crimes, etc. However, you cannot eliminate discontent without eliminating greed; which is simply not possible. Even so, there are a couple of problems with even attempting "to take away the root causes", not the least of which is the Constitutionally protected right to free speech. I am allowed to teach my kid to hate anyone for any reason. I can blame this or that group for this set of troubles, and that the best way to deal with this is not only to scare them away, but to kill as many of them as possible. It may be morally repugnant, but it is protected speech. The countries that sponsor terrorists have not been noted for their successful educational systems. And they certainly are not going to listen to Western discussions on how best to solve their "problems". Do you still not accept that we have a world that contains people who exist in conditions that foster and breed terrorists? If not, look at some more concrete examples. Have you ever met an Islamic fundamentalist? How about a Christian fundamentalist? There really is no difference between them, other than the specific quotations that exit their pre-programmed mouths. When religion enteres the picture, no amount of logic will convince the true believers that they are acting destructively. Even moderately regligious Christians (the people to whom I have been most exposed) have very strong beliefs that X is the word of God, and therefore not subject to question. When this is some destructive (yet not obvious as such) statement, such as "Go forth and multiply", no amount of education or logic will convince them that Zero Population Growth is a good thing. I'm sure you can multiply this into all sorts of destructive behavior preached locally, such as the Southern Baptist preachers who refuse to denounce the maltreatment of blacks or the burning of black churches. There is no force of law that can alter this behavior. My point here is that this behavior is explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. So, do you not accept that we have the environment right here that can breed violence and discontent? For the most part, I see kids today being educated with much less "hatred" than even my age group was brought up with (I'm 34). We're moving in the right direction by incorporating diversity in education, entertainment and the workplace, but we can never hope to erase it all. And if even one person retains the seed of violence, they can employ the "warfare of the weak" -- terrorism. >or that they are worth the money. terrorists invariably have a >patricular pathological psychological profile that sees the world >in terms of "martyrs vs. villians" with the villians in the government, >and the villians taking away or abusing respectable citizens. So your point here is one of *agreement* that human nature will produce psychological profiles of people who commit acts of terror. >the "problem" of terrorism will be solved when we take the view >that insanity and violence is *not* >a natural aspect of human behavior (as TCM tends to suggest), Even in spite of your argument above? Violence is here. It's been present since recorded history. We've gotten pretty good at it, actually. I think the record speaks pretty clearly that violence continues to be a part of human behavior, despite any efforts made to stop it. >and that >there are specific environmental conditions that breed it. like >malaria, if you take away the swamplike breeding grounds, you will >largely remove it. such a thing is a radical hypothesis, but one that >nonetheless has never really been tested in practice. As I said above, we can reduce some of the breeding grounds, but we can not eradicate them all. And if one were to conduct a study correlating racist attitudes with education with numbers of acts of terror, we might find a direct correlation. The U.S. has a level of tolerance for diversity that I only recently came to appreciate. We hosted a foreign exchange student from Scotland (hardly culture shock to him), but he surprised me when he commented on how surprised he was that different groups of people were mixed together -- black kids hanging out with white kids, catholics and protestants being friends, the sort of thing that I take for granted every day. He expected the subtle racism of home. And lets just say that Great Britain's culture is probably closer to ours than any other country. I am more than willing to agree with you that elimination of hatred and prejudice will go farther than any law enforcement measures to reduce terrorist acts. However, my point, and I believe this is Tim's point, too, is that it will *never* eliminate these acts, and that there must be other ways of dealing with the problems that occur. >>I'm not advocating such "terrorism," by the way, merely telling it like it is. >ah yes, the standard amusing TCM disclaimer. hmmm, your signature suggests >otherwise. This personal attack was completely unwarranted. Are you suggesting that Tim is a sponsor of terrorist attacks, or that he approves of the repeatedly demonstrated governmental penchant for violating our privacy whenever convenient? There was no point to making this statement, other than to foster discontent. >>(Remember, terrorism is just warfare carried on by other means, with >>apolgies to Von Clausewitz.) >disagree. the purpose of warfare has traditionally been to seize I completely disagree with you here. Terror has all the same purposes as general-purpose warfare: it's simply being carried out by a smaller group, without the resources available to an entire government. Look at the Irish Question: they want independance from a government they deem undesirable. Look at the arabian terrorist bombings of Americans in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc.: they want to drive the U.S. Army out. Likewise, the bombing of the Murrah building in OK was a "military" target: it housed the agencies that some small group percieved to be responsible for the attack on Waco. Even the church building burnings happening across the southern U.S. appear to have a specific objective: to frighten the victims; and if the victims left the area, the terrorists would have accomplished their objectives. No hidden purposes here: these are all military actions being carried out by groups that are simply not in a position to negotiate. It is "warfare by the weak". You may think that you hold every answer to terrorism in your hand, that hugs and kisses before bedtime will make the evil monsters under the bed go away. The point of Tim's essay was that, yes, the net can be used by the evil monsters, and yes, the evil monsters are here, and no, the evil monsters are not going away any time soon. Why did you feel it necessary to try to slam his fairly well-researched and quite obvious conclusion? John -- J. Deters >From Senator C. Burns' Pro-CODE bill, which I support and you can find at: http://www.senate.gov/member/mt/burns/general/billtext.htm " (2) Miniaturization, disturbed computing, and reduced transmission costs make communication via electronic networks a reality." +---------------------------------------------------------+ | NET: jad(a)dsddhc.com (work) jad(a)pclink.com (home) | | PSTN: 1 612 375 3116 (work) 1 612 894 8507 (home) | | ICBM: 44^58'33"N by 93^16'42"W Elev. ~=290m (work) | | PGP Key ID: 768 / 15FFA875 | +---------------------------------------------------------+

3 2

Re: But what about the poor?
by minow＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Jim Bell wants to get rich running a key escrow business (:-) > >Oh, but what a business opportunity! I assume a floppy can hold 1000 keys. >Even if I undercut the going rate of $200 per year by a factor of 10, that's >a potential income of $20,000 per floppy per year. A box of 20 floppies on >the shelf, and I'm set for life! > Add in the cost of a bank vault and the ability to provide any key to an approved law enforcement agency (i.e., one that provides you with a legitimate search warrant for the key) with a 2 hour response time (24/7/365). Also, you will have to take in keys as they are provided. Hmm, the SecureCard (tm) I use to dial into my office system generates one key per minute. Assume there are a million out there. Assume keys are 64 bits (8 bytes) + 64 bits of card ID. 16 Mbytes/minute is, according to the back of my envelope, just under 1/4 mbyte/sec, so each of those floppy's will fill up pretty quickly, and you'll need a really, really, big safe to put them in. Of course, Jim probably knows this. Martin.

1 0

Re: SAFE Forum--some comments
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:47 PM 7/2/96 -0700, Lile Elam wrote: >The comment I kept hearing over and over was that we have to >educate the public about what cryptography is and why it's important >to everyone using computers to communicate. This public includes >people who are not on the net and those who don't even know what the >Internet is. Absolutely! The image of postcards vs. letters may be the most effective metaphor. > www.art.net Check it out. Well worth the visit. (And if, like me, you are limited to 28.8, well, you can practice your Zen.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet may fairly be | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | regarded as a never-ending | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | worldwide conversation. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Net and Terrorism.
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:13 PM 7/2/96, snow wrote: >On Tue, 2 Jul 1996, snow wrote: >> Gain control of the power grid (I don't know how possible this is) >> and selectively brown out certain sections of the city during peak demand >> periods. Make it obvious, then do the preceeding idea. > Ummm... Just in case anyone is thinking it right now, NO, I >didn't. If this outage was deliberate, I had nothing to do with it. I was >just postulating possibilities. Hmmhhh....I post about the "Net and Terrorism" on Sunday, and the Viper Militia and their plans to blow up several courthouses in Phoenix are revealed a few hours later....Snow posts about using computers to knock out the power grid, and a few hours later power goes out over 15 western states.... Coincidence? I think not. But we can test this hypothesis: "Alien spaceship images will appear in thousands of darkened rooms and will trigger mass hysteria." We'll find out tomorrow if Cypherpunks really do have the Power. --Tim Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

RE: Net and Terrorism.
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: tcmay(a)got.net > > >"Alien spaceship images will appear in thousands of darkened rooms and >will trigger mass hysteria." ............................................................... Scheduled for July 4th, "at a theater near you". > .. >Blanc

1 0

F-C Dispatch #16: DoJ files appeal, Supreme Court ho!
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fight-Censorship Dispatch #16 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Department files appeal, Supreme Court ho! ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Declan McCullagh / declan(a)well.com / Redistribute freely ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this dispatch: Justice Department's appeal means long, tortuous process A mysterious "Order on Motion for Clarification" Text of Justice Department's Notice of Appeal July 2, 1996 WASHINGTON, DC -- The Department of Justice yesterday appealed the Philadelphia court's decision striking down the Communications Decency Act, a move that sets the stage for a long, tortuous climb to the Supreme Court. The government's "Notice of Appeal" is a terse, two-page statement saying they "hereby appeal" the "Adjudication and Order entered June 12," the day the special three-judge panel unanimously declared the CDA to be unconstitutional and blocked the Justice Department from enforcing it. Next move is the DoJ's. They have until September 1 to file a "jurisdictional statement" arguing that the Supreme Court should hear their appeal. The Supreme Court doesn't automatically have to accept jurisdiction, notes Ann Beeson, an attorney with the ACLU. "The Supreme Court can still decline to exercise jurisdiction over the case," she says, adding: "They do not have the same kind of discretion they have in a cert petition." All the DoJ has to do is convince the Supremes that there's "still a substantial federal question," says Beeson. "If they're not convinced there is a question, they can decline the appeal." But by all accounts, there's precious little chance of that happening. After Justice files the jurisdictional statement, our attorneys have 30 days to file a response -- and then when the next term begins on October 7, the Supremes will meet to discuss the case. (If the procedure is anything like granting cert, the votes will be cast in a secret conference attended only by the justices and the actual vote won't be disclosed.) The climb to the nation's highest court will be only partly over by then, since the court's decision to consider our case marks the start of the briefing schedule. The government will have 45 more days to file their arguments saying why the Philadelphia decision was wrong; we have 30 more days to rebut. If the Department of Justice -- hardly the speediest bureaucracy in DC -- uses all of their alloted time, the paperwork won't be complete until Christmas. And then the Supremes need plenty of time to digest it. So everyone's best guess is that the Supreme Court will hear the combined ACLU and ALA coalition lawsuits early next year -- just in time for the rescheduled Electronic Freedom March on the nation's Capitol. As I wrote in a recent HotWired column: "The ACLU predicts the Supreme Court will issue a decision near the close of the next term, which ends in July 1997 -- just in time for Congress to try again." +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ THE MYSTERIOUS "ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION" +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ You might be surprised by a mysterious sentence in the text of the Justice Department's notice of appeal talking about a "Order on Motion for Clarification" the court issued on June 28. Not to worry. The judges ruled so vigorously in our favor that the DoJ wanted to be sure the government could prosecute anyone they think may violate other parts of the CDA. "Because of the wording of the court's actual order, they unwittingly called into question whether the DoJ could enforce the provisions of the CDA that we didn't challenge," says Ann Beeson from the ACLU. The Philadelphia court quickly issued the clarification. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ TEXT OF JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S "NOTICE OF APPEAL" +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA _____________________________________________________________ AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, : CIVIL ACTION et al., Plaintiffs; : No. 96-963 : v. : : JANET RENO, in her official : capacity as Attorney General of : the United States, Defendant. : _____________________________________________________________ AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, : CIVIL ACTION INC., et al., Plaintiffs; : No. 96-1458 : v. : : UNITED STATES DEP'T OF JUSTICE, : et al., Defendants. : _____________________________________________________________ DEFENDANTS' NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that defendant Janet Reno, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, hereby appeals, pursuant to section 561(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, Sec.561(b), 110 Stat. 143, to the Supreme Court of the United States from the Adjudication and Order entered June 12, 1996, as clarified by the Order on Motion for Clarification entered on June 28, 1996, in American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. Reno, Civ. A. No. 96-0963 (E.D. Pa.). Notice is also hereby given that defendants United States Department of Justice and Janet Reno, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, hereby appeal, pursuant to section 561(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, Sec.561(b), 110 Stat. 143, to the Supreme Court of the United States from the Adjudication and Order entered June 12, 1996, as clarified by the Order on Motion for Clarification entered on June 28, 1996, in American Library Ass'n, et al. v. Department of Justice, et al., Civ. A. No. 96-1458 (E.D. Pa.). Respectfully Submitted, MICHAEL R. STILES United States Attorney MARK R. KMETZ Assistant United States Attorney FRANK W. HUNGER Assistant Attorney General Civil Division DENNIS G. LINDER Director, Federal Programs Branch [signed] ANTHONY J. COPPOLINO Trial Attorney [signed] JASON R. BARON PATRICIA M. RUSSOTTO Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Civil Division Federal Programs Branch 901 E. Street N.W. Washington, Dc 20530 Tel: (202) 514-4782 Date: July 1, 1996 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- MEA CULPA. In F-C Dispatch #13, I wrote that the Washington Post ran an article "on the first page of the Outlook section bashing "self-indulgent dross" and "crap" on the Net. I neglected to mention that John Schwartz and Kara Swisher had an excellent rebuttal inside. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mentioned in this CDA update: HotWired column on what kind of net-censorship Congress will try next: http://www.hotwired.com/netizen/96/24/declan4a.html Fight-Censorship Dispatch #13: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2741 Fight-Censorship list <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/> Int'l Net-Censorship <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/international/> Justice on Campus <http://joc.mit.edu/> This document and previous Fight-Censorship Dispatches are archived at: <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/> To subscribe to future Fight-Censorship Dispatches and related announcements, send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" in the body of a message addressed to: majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu Other relevant web sites: <http://www.aclu.org/> <http://www.cdt.org/> <http://www.vtw.org/> <http://www.cpsr.org/> <http://www.epic.org/> <http://www.ala.org/> <http://www.eff.org/> <http://joc.mit.edu/> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Lack of PGP signatures
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:43 PM 7/2/96 -0400, David F. Ogren wrote: >I've noticed recently that two PGP programmers (Mr. Zimmerman and Mr. >Atkins) do not seem to PGP clearsign their messages to this list. In fact, >a surprisingly small percentage of messages on the C-punk list are signed. >This despite the fact that the average subscriber is at least literate in >PGP. > >Does anybody have any speculation on why this is? I want implausible deniability for the mistakes I make. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | The Internet may fairly be | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | regarded as a never-ending | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | worldwide conversation. | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0