- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

thank god and phil...
by anonymous-remailer＠shell.portal.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

All I can say is thank God and Phil for PGP... My next X was using the 'puter last night and opened my email folders and was rooting around... I had to "fumble" my pass phrase and finally "give up" saying that the damn PGP was broke again... we all know it don't break !! This could have cost me a fortune in divorce court !!

1 0

Re: "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
by Charley Sparks 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought metal collanders on the cranium were to prevent space aliens from reading our thoughts and controlling our minds.... Guess I'll have to come up with a better solution... mine seems to have worked thus far, though Charley > >"Erik E. Fair" (Time Keeper) <fair(a)cesium.clock.org> writes: > >> I wonder how well the imager works through mylar or gold lame' clothing (or >> other high-metal content clothing)? > >Have you ever wondered why Tim May wears a protective layer of aluminum >foil on his head? (And lead foil wrapped around his balls.) > >--- > >Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM >Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps >

1 0

Re: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
by Peter Trei 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tim writes: > I don't see how "remote scanning" of the population at large, without > probable cause, is much different from the cops listening in from a > distance with parabolic antennas. Both cases involve detection of signals > emitted from the target. And yet such long-distance interception is not > allowed without a warrant. I vaguely remember another possibly relevant precedent, where a judge ruled that a warrant was required before a thermal imager could be used to look at a house suspected by the police of being a (pot) grow house. Peter Trei trei(a)process.com

1 0

PGP...
by sasa.roskar＠uni-lj.si 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I'm confused.... if you don't want people to be able to read your email, you code it with PGP or other encoders... but why give away your key on your website to everyone? That makes your email readable to everyone... doesn't it? Oh well... I hope someone can explain this to me... Roki

4 3

Re: Why should we trust the system?
by an681132＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Previously, jonathon <grafolog(a)netcom.com> wrote: >> >> I know of a very good way to ensure that judges do follow >> the standards that they claim to follow. >> >> It works even better at making politicians keep all the >> election promises the make. >> >> Has one drawback --- it reduces the number of people willing >> to carry out those two functions to virtually zero. OTOH, that >> probably would be a very good thing. > Previously, jim bell <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote: > That's odd...I know of one also! B^) Ok, please clue in the clueless. --****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--****ATTENTION****--***ATTENTION*** Your e-mail reply to this message WILL be *automatically* ANONYMIZED. Please, report inappropriate use to abuse(a)anon.penet.fi For information (incl. non-anon reply) write to help(a)anon.penet.fi If you have any problems, address them to admin(a)anon.penet.fi

1 0

ALERT: Show Congress you want privacy during Crypto Action Week! (8/20/96)
by Voters Telecommunications Watch 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

=========================================================================== ___ _____ _____ _____ ___ / __| _ \ \ / / _ \_ _/ _ \ JOIN THOUSANDS OF OTHER NET.AMERICANS AS | (__| /\ V /| _/ | || (_) | THEY WORK FOR BETTER PRIVACY AND ENCRYPTION \___|_|_\ |_| |_| |_| \___/ September 3-10, 1996 ___ ___ _____ ___ ___ _ _ __ _____ ___ _ __ / _ \ / __|_ _|_ _/ _ \| \| | \ \ / / __| __| |/ / | _ | (__ | | | | (_) | .` | \ \/\/ /| _|| _|| ' < |_| |_|\___| |_| |___\___/|_|\_| \_/\_/ |___|___|_|\_\ SENATE PRO-CRYPTO PRO-CODE BILL COULD BE VOTED OUT OF COMMITTEE YOUR HELP IS NEEDED TO PREPARE CONGRESS FOR THE DEBATE! http://www.crypto.com/caw/ Reproduce this where appropriate until September 15, 1996 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents News from the frontlines What you must do Concluding the meeting Tips on how to conduct your visit Angles on encryption Questions about encryption you might be asked Participating Organizations / More Information --------------------------------------------------------------------------- NEWS FROM THE FRONTLINES Congress as a whole is beginning to focus on encryption - bills moving through both House and Senate would improve availability of privacy and security for the Net. With three hearings in the Senate and one scheduled in House Judiciary Committee for early September - pro-encryption bills have a chance of passing, or at least helping to lay the groundwork for the next Congress. Recently in a live chat from the Republican Convention in San Diego, Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) said he believed he had enough votes to pass Pro-CODE out of the Senate Sub-Committee and Committee. This is the farthest encryption activists will have come in the crypto fight in years. We need your help to make the case to Congress that encryption is important to privacy and security online, as well as the future potential of the Internet to create jobs and promote US competitiveness. Here's what you can do: -sign the petition at http://www.crypto.com/petition/ -make an appointment with your legislator's local office With the directions below, visit your Congressperson - urge them to support the two bills: Pro-CODE "Promotion of Commerce Online in the Digital Era" (S.1726) & SAFE "Security and Freedom Through Encryption" (HR 3011). Now is the time to tell your member of Congress that government restrictions on encryption are unacceptable to the future of the Internet. In recent months, the FBI and the White House have been using local sheriffs to lobby members of Congress on this issue. If you don't tell your member of Congress our side of the story, they won't hear it from anyone. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT YOU MUST DO Here's what you need to do: 1. Make an appointment with your Senators'/Representative's local office. It's probably best to make an appointment with the local office manager. It's great if you can get an appointment with your legislator, but don't worry if your legislator cannot be there. If you don't know who your Representative and two Senators are, simply call the local League of Women Voters office and ask! You might also try using the Zipper at http://www.voxpop.org:80/zipper/ 2. Sign the petition at http://www.crypto.com/petition/ A petition has been setup to help show Congress that encryption policy must be driven by the market's concerns. 3. Setting up the meeting When making the appointment, you should say that the topic is privacy and encryption on the Internet. Ensure they know you are a constituent. If possible, take a friend who owns a small Internet business (web design, ISP, whatever) who also lives in the district. It's crucial that you do not wait to get someone to go before making the appointment. Make the appointment, then go looking for someone to go with you. 4. Carry the following message as a theme through your meeting. Encryption is important to privacy - the Internet is vulnerable and the future of American competitiveness is at stake. Encryption is NOT a terrorist weapon any more than a hammer is a terrorist weapon. While there are difficult national security issues, these should not be the driving force of this debate. The future of the Internet should not be held hostage by a cold-war era world view. 5. Send us mail at vtw(a)vtw.org when you've made your appointment. Check back at http://www.crypto.com/caw/ for progress and tips on Crypto Action Week! --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CONCLUDING THE MEETING There are a few things you should remember as you finish your meeting. If talking to a member, find out if we can count on his/her support for the PRO-CODE/SAFE bill. If talking to a staffer, make it their mission to find out the answer to this question. As you leave the meeting, run, don't walk, to the nearest card shop and buy a thank you card. Write a thank you and address it immediately. Stick it in the nearest mailbox. Send us mail at vtw(a)vtw.org, letting us know how it went. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIPS ON HOW TO CONDUCT YOUR VISIT Always be polite. Never threaten. Never lose your cool. Many staffers have no idea what encryption is. Moreover, they might have never used the Internet. You should view this as an opportunity: you will get the chance to define the debate and educate them. You may even want to bring a laptop with a modem and take the member/staff on a breif Internet tour. (Be careful about what you show them.) Remember we're all taxpayers, so the phrase "I'm a taxpayer" is meaningless. Be brief. If you're going in a group, plan out the topics each person will hit. Appoint someone to act as a spokesperson for the group, so there can be a central contact. Remember the first law of Real Estate: LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION. It's crucial that everyone at the meeting be a potential vote for the legislator. Remind yourself that your legislator probably hasn't yet made a decision on this issue yet; you're there to educate as much as anything. Go as *individuals* or *business owners* who have a stake in the debate on encryption issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ANGLES ON ENCRYPTION Internet business angle: When speaking from the point of view of an Internet Service Provider or Web design firm, you have available several arguments, such as: "The popularity of the Net has created a gold rush which has benefitted my business and the local voters I employ. Concerns about security on the net could dampen that excitement, and diminish the potential for industry" "Many types of services that I would like to offer online cannot be done without strong security. The current level of security is too weak to engender public trust, and will diminish the types of business people will put on the net." Clipper angle: If someone brings up the issue of Clipper and the idea that government should be trusted to hold your private encryption key, you have several options available to you: "It's not clear that the Administration can be trusted to hold any information secret, after incidents like the FBI Filegate scandal." "Handing over one's encryption keys to the gov't is just like giving the local police station a copy of your house key, just in case they need to search your apartment. Of course they would promise never to use it unless authorized." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- QUESTIONS ABOUT ENCRYPTION YOU MIGHT BE ASKED There are a number of questions you will probably be asked by the staff or member that you should be prepared to answer. Here's a few of them and some answers you should feel comfortable with. WHAT IS ENCRYPTION? Encryption is a method of scrambling information with one or more "keys" so that only the sender and receiver can read it, and an eavesdropper cannot. Your bank card PIN, telephone conversations, love letters, health records, and business correspondence are all things that might need to be encrypted. WON'T TERRORISTS AND CRIMINALS USE ENCRYPTION? Perhaps. But criminals and terrorists already have access to strong encryption from overseas, and are unlikely to use encryption technologies which they know are breakable by the US government. Would you send sensitive information using a code that you knew your adversaries could break? Criminals and terrorists will, for better or worse, have access to strong encryption regardless of U.S. efforts to restrict its availability. Meanwhile, current U.S. policy leaves sensative personal and business communications vulnerable and actually creates opportunities for crimes like industrial espionage. WHAT IS 40 BIT ENCRYPTION? Quite often the strength of an encryption system is measured by the size of the key. Forty bits is about the same as a five or six letter word, such as "apple". The US government has stated that American companies that wish to sell products with encryption can only implement encryption whose keys are forty bits long. At one time it was quite difficult to attack and recover messages that were encrypted with 40 bit encryption. Because of advances in computer power and research, it has become much easier to do this. As recently as last year, a graduate student in France broke 40-bit encryption using University resources he had available in his spare time. DON'T EXPORT RESTRICTIONS PREVENT ENCRYPTION PRODUCTS FROM GOING ABROAD? No. The idea that export restrictions actually keep encryption out of the hands of non-U.S. citizens implies that all encryption products come from the U.S. This is simply untrue, and the plethora of products available from non-U.S. sources now shows how absurd it is to continue to keep such regulations intact. DO EXPORT RESTRICTIONS HURT U.S. COMPANIES IN THE GLOBAL MARKETPLACE? Yes. American hardware and software companies compete globally with products from around the world. For many companies, a majority of their business comes from international sales. In the crowded marketplace of this fast- paced business, developing a product with a single feature that outshines a competitor's product can often be deciding factor in a consumer's mind. Yet, American hardware and software businesses are at a disadvantage, as many competing non-U.S. products can offer stronger encryption than they can. This places American products at a distinct competitive disadvantage. DO EXPORT RESTRICTIONS LIMIT AMERICANS' CHOICE OF SECURITY PRODUCTS? Yes. Although it is possible to sell two versions of a product, one with strong encryption for sale domestically and one with weak encryption for sale abroad, most companies find this schizophrenic product development approach to be too burdensome and risky. The result is that companies that produce hardware and software products that require security tend to omit such features entirely, or weaken them so that the same product can be used for export as for domestic use. The end result of this is that Americans end up with products that are becoming increasingly incapable of protecting their privacy, hampered by regulations that can longer accomplish their goal. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS / MORE INFORMATION For more information on the encryption issue, check these important organizations' WWW sites: Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT): http://www.cdt.org Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): http://www.eff.org Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC): http://www.epic.org Voters Telecommunications Watch (VTW): http://www.vtw.org Wired Ventures Ltd.: http://www.hotwired.com Also check these great educational sites: Encryption Policy Resource Page (http://www.crypto.com) Internet Privacy Coalition (http://www.privacy.org) ========================================================================

1 0

Re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by Bart Croughs 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timothy May wrote: >The problem with the "Croughs Axiom" is not that there is not a _general_ correlation between average national wages and average national capital investment--there is. < As I said, I would be proud if the axiom that wages are determined by the amount of capital invested was discovered by me, but it really isn't, so there is no reason to keep calling it the "Croughs axiom". This is no display of false modesty. This axiom was already accepted by Austrian economists when I wasn't even born. See my quotes of Rothbard, Hazlitt, etc. in one of my previous posts on this subject. >A scatter plot of wages vs. capital investment for the 200 or so nations would almost certainly show that the Ivory Coast has low per capita wages and low per capita wages, Sweden has both higher wages and higher capital investment per capita, and so on.< I couldn't agree more. > Correlation, of course, is not causation.< Sometimes correlation and causation don't go together; sometimes they do. In this case, they go together. I mentioned the reasoning behind this in a previous post on this subject, but maybe you didn't read this, so I will repeat it here: "Imagine Robinson Crusoe. In the beginning, he catches fish with his bare hands. He has no capital investment, and consequently he is not very productive. His wage will be low (he will not catch much fish). If there is more capital investment - if, for example, he has a fishing rod - he will catch more fish in less time. His productivity is higher. His wage is higher (more fish). If there is still more capital investment - if, for example, he has a boat and fishing nets - he will catch even more fish. His productivity is higher. His wage is higher. Etcetera. So, it's really not difficult to see that Robin's standard of living depends on the amount of capital available on his island. The same goes for the rest of humanity." :>No, the problem was that Croughs invoked this general _correlation_ (which can arise for various reasons) to support his mercantilist protectionist ideas.< This general correlation between wages and the amount of capital invested does not arise for various reasons; it arises for the reason explained above. But of course there are reasons why there is more capital investment in the U.S. than there is in Third World countries. The main reason is that economic activities were and are hindered by the Third World governments more than by the U.S. government. As I already explained in a previous post on this subject, I have no mercantilist protectionist ideas. Even when the movement of US capital abroad would lead to a drop in wages for US workers, I would still support the free movement of capital, simply because I subscribe to the libertarian non-aggression axiom. (And no, I didn't discover this axiom either. Alas.) > (He also didn't say he was talking of nations, which is why some of us found the examples we did, e.g., MacDonald's vs. law firms, which have the opposite correlation he described.)< I didn't say I was talking about nations, because I thought this would be obvious for anyone who knows a bit about economics. Maybe I should have been more explicit here. >And the cloud of ideas connected with somehow forcing capital investment to remain in the U.S....well, the best way to do this is to alter the tax laws so that America (for example) becomes a magnet for investment. (If one is looking to help America, that is.)< I couldn't agree more. But this still doesn't answer the question I asked in my original post. >In any case, the original notion, of somehow using cryptography policy to support U.S. interests....well, I rather doubt that Menger, Von Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, or any of the others connected with the Austrian School would buy Crough's protectionist arguments.< I don't understand. Do you mean to say that I had the notion of using cryptography policy to support U.S. interests? Read my posts again, I can't find this notion in my posts. It agree that Menger, Von Mises, Hayek or Hazlitt could probably answer the question I asked in my original post, which I will repeat here for the sake of clarity: "If American companies are moving capital to Third World countries because of the low wages in these countries, then the workers in the Third World will of course be better off. But in the US, the amount of capital will be lowered. So the American workers will be able to get other jobs, but these jobs will pay less, because of the diminished amount of capital in the US. (As I said in another post on this subject, I mean that these jobs will pay *relatively less*, that is: less than they would have been paid if the American capital wouldn't have left the U.S.) Of course there are advantages also for the US (shareholders will get higher returns, trade will increase), but how can you proof that these advantages will offset the disadvantage of the lowered amount of capital in the US? " So I agree that the Austrian economists could probably answer my question, but in their books I wasn't able to find the answer, and these economists are not on this list. So I hoped that others on this list who had knowledge of Austrian economics could answer this question. That's really the only reason I asked my question: I wanted to be able to rebut protectionist arguments more effectively.You seem to be acquainted with the Austrian economists, but so far, you didn't answer my question. >And I certainly know that jingoistic appeals to "America First!" are inconsistent with the sentiments of many or even most on this list.< I know, that's why it's so disappointing that nobody has been able to answer my question thus far. And, as I said earlier, I share this sentiment; that's why I'm on the list. I just want to be able to defend my sentiments better against protectionist arguments. Bart Croughs

1 0

re: National Socio-Economic Security Need for Encryption Technology
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:29 AM 8/13/96 +-200, Bart Croughs wrote: > In several posts I gave quotes from famous Austrian economists > that support my statement that according to Austrian economists > wages depend on the amount of capital invested. You are wrong, and Perry is wrong, or rather you are misleading, and Perry is wrong. The statement "wages depend on the amount of capital invested". can have several meanings. In the hands of the Austrians, it does not have the implications that you force on it, and this is what Perry ought to be complaining about, though instead he is saying something quite different. Obviously if everyone saves more money and invests it those things that they find most profitable, this will raise both total income and wages. Obviously if the government takes control of other peoples capital, and directs it to those places it finds most socially desirable, this will lower both total income and wages. I assume we are in agreement so far. Next question: If the government restrains american businessmen from investing outside America, will this alter the balance of power between capital and labor inside America, in favor of labor, while altering it against labor outside America. Well if nothing else changed, yes it would, and if Perry denied this he was wrong. But of course capital is international, because it belongs to individuals, not to nations. Since large amounts of money flow in and out of the US, a bureaucratic intervention that aimed to have the desired effect would have to be extensive and drastic, amounting to fascist style socialism. Again, I assume we are in agreement on this. Next question: Competition between labor in the third world, and labor in the US. In those cases where labor is a minor factor in production, then the price of labor would be dominated by the cheapest source of labor. Or rather the cheapest source of labor that is not controlled by a government that capriciously robs and enslaves. At present the cheapest such labor source is probably Thailand, which is not actually all that cheap these days, but is one hell of a lot cheaper than the US. But for *desirable jobs*, such as software engineering, the jobs that people are getting excited about, the cost of labor in Thailand is roughly comparable to the cost in America. The kind of jobs that are being taken by cheap unskilled Thai labor, are the jobs you cannot get anyone to do in America except for illegal immigrants. We would expect this, because in any area where labor is the dominant factor of production (such as engineering) a large supply of cheap labor will very swiftly CREATE the necessary capital. Again, you might point to India as an infamous counter example, since engineering labor is vastly cheaper in India. But this is not a result of supply and demand causing an extreme misdistribution of wealth between capital and labor, but is a reflection of the fact that an engineer who is subject to the power of the Indian government is not worth very much, as is demonstrated by the fact that companies with Indian engineering teams often spend a lot of money to get their employees out of India. Demand for Indian programmers is less than supply not because capital has somehow failed to flow to India, but because an engineer in India is not free to produce the value that engineers elsewhere are free to produce. To say the same thing another way: The primary capital for engineers is that held within engineers heads. Therefore controls on capital flows are controls on engineers, which are likely to benefit those doing the controlling, not those controlled. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: India, Productivity, and Tropical Climes
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 13:15 11/08/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: >At 4:17 AM 8/11/96, Arun Mehta wrote: >>One of the >>reasons that IBM was thrown out of India in the mid seventies was >>their practice of shipping only outdated computers from the US to >>India. >This I tend to disagree with. I recall that India had some laws in the >1970s which required companies to dislose trade secrets to them. As a >result, IBM chose not to stay in India. I recall that Coca-Cola also >refused to turn over the formula for Coke, but this may've been urban >legend. The IBM case is pretty well-documented. IBM would've sold the >latest and greatest technology to India if: a) it was profitable to them, >b) if India could've paid for a 370/90 or whatever in 1975, c) if COCOM >regulations would have allowed such a sale (doubtful, given the Ghandi >dynasty's cozying up to the Sovs in the 70s. > >I don't think shipment of "old technology" to India was at all on IBM's >list of concerns, certainly not back then. Sorry, the response took a while: George Fernandes, who was the industries minister at the time, is an acquaintance, so I thought I'd get the story from the horse's mouth. In the aftermath of the oil crisis, India was short of foreign exchange, so it passed the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) under which foreign equity in an Indian company could only exceed 40% if the company was hi-tech or produced something of critical national importance. The government saw no reason why precious foreign exchange should go out as profits on the sale of toothpaste or cola. Coke claimed that its secret formula qualified it as a hi-tech company, and so it should be allowed 100% ownership of its Indian subsidiary. The government saw no reason why: that was easy. The Indian government wasn't asking Coke to reveal its formula, merely dilute its holding to 40%. That one was easy. As regards IBM, its agreement with the government of India, under which it was allowed to operate in the country, stipulated that it would produce here, and transfer some technology. Instead, as the government found, all it did was sell time on second-hand computers (1401's as I recall, and this was mid to late '70s). IBM was asked to either dilute, or live up to its original agreement, which it wasn't prepared to do, so it left. > >As attractive as this sounds, historically this has not happened. And as >many will tell you, the climate of the Bay Area in particular and >California in general is extremely benign and delightful. The average >winter temperature is only about 10C cooler than summer temperatures. Didn't Mark Twain say that the coldest winter he had ever experienced was a summer in San Francisco? I do agree, SF and environs are great: but US immigration laws being what they are, not everyone can move there -- some day, "routing around" might make those places more attractive which have the least restrictive immigration laws. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

2 1

Re: [NOISE] "X-Ray Gun" for imperceptible searches
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:27 8/13/96, Peter Trei wrote: >I vaguely remember another possibly relevant precedent, where a >judge ruled that a warrant was required before a thermal imager >could be used to look at a house suspected by the police of >being a (pot) grow house. Wrong. No warrant was used and the bust was upheld in court. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. Defeat the Demopublican Unity Party. Vote no on Clinton/Dole in November. Vote Harry Browne for President.

3 2