- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Gov Access to Key Strokes
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Would any of the members of the NAS CRISIS panel know if keystroke surveillance one of the technologies proposed for the FBI as an alternative to GAK? Could this technology to be covertly placed in all keyboards for activation say, by remote control, or via a program/device on the Internet? Recall the various proposals for putting hardware encryption in keyboards, with the possibility of covert GAK.

2 1

IP: "CyberCash can't oust credit cards"
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hettinga's three laws of internet payment technology investment: 1. Geodesic, peer-to-peer transactions. 2. Three orders of magnitude cost reduction. 3. Nothing but net. The application of the above to Cybercash, or SET, for that matter, I leave as an exercise for the reader... Cheers, Bob Hettinga --- begin forwarded text Delivered-To: ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com X-Sender: believer(a)telepath.com Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998 13:53:40 -0500 To: believer(a)telepath.com From: believer(a)telepath.com Subject: IP: "CyberCash can't oust credit cards" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-ignition-point(a)majordomo.pobox.com Precedence: list Reply-To: believer(a)telepath.com Source: Charlotte (N.C.) Observer (printing a Washington Post article) Posted at 3:32 p.m. EDT Friday, July 3, 1998 CyberCash can't oust credit cards By MARK LEIBOVICH The Washington Post WASHINGTON -- Two years ago, CyberCash Inc. walked tall as a pioneer in the seemingly vast frontier of Internet commerce. Today, the Reston, Va., firm and its software that lets merchants receive payments over the Internet offers a cautionary lesson in how social habits in the digital age are difficult to predict -- and dicey to stake a business on. On Tuesday, CyberCash announced that its second-quarter revenue would be below expectations, and that it would lay off 20 percent of its staff. The news sent its stock price into a decline -- the latest to strike the company. Once trading in the $60 range, it fell steadily this week to finish at $11.12 1/2. The hard times come even as CyberCash has tried to tone down its aspirations and diversify into a more conventional business, the processing of credit-card transactions in ordinary stores. The moral, said Ulric Weil, a technology analyst at investment bank Friedman, Billings Ramsey Co. in Arlington, Va., is: ``It's always hard to bet on the purchasing mores of consumers.'' William N. ``Bill'' Melton, one of Northern Virginia's most accomplished technology entrepreneurs, envisioned a world of paperless purchasing when he founded CyberCash in August 1994. In this world, Internet users would purchase goods and services using new ``virtual currencies,'' such as CyberCoin, a CyberCash product that allows online purchases of up to $20 at a time by transferring funds from a credit card or bank account to an account that CyberCash oversaw. Few people bought anything with this virtual currency at first, but the market was patient. In the speculative world of Internet stocks, the potential for this commerce seemed limitless, and CyberCash was an instant Wall Street hit. Company shares, first offered to the public for $17 in February 1996, were trading at more than $60 by that June. But today, investors are tired of waiting. The predicted rush to electronic currency remains a mere trickle and what little there is generally uses plain-old credit card transactions, not a fancy new currency. For now, consumers shopping online merely want to use something they know and trust for payment, the credit card, not an entirely new form of currency. After this week's layoff, which involved about 20 positions in the Washington area, CyberCash has about 200 employees. It remains unprofitable, having reported a loss of $5.67 million on sales of $1.14 million in the January-March quarter. If life weren't uncertain enough in Reston, speculation was rampant this week among analysts who follow the company that its low stock price was making it a ripe takeover target. These predictions were fueled further by the company's announcement Tuesday that its board of directors had adopted a new shareholders rights, or ``poison pill,'' plan, which companies typically use to deter unwanted takeover bids. In this case, if an outside entity attempted to purchase a stake in CyberCash that exceeded 15 percent, the company board could invoke the provision -- at which point CyberCash shareholders would win the right to purchase company shares at a greatly discounted price. For a potential buyer, this would make CyberCash far more expensive. Russ Stevenson, CyberCash's general counsel, said the new provision was not related to the company's recent struggles, and that the timing of its adoption was coincidental. In a statement, CyberCash said the poison pill did not come in response to an acquisition proposal. James J. Condon, the company's chief operations officer, would not comment on whether CyberCash was in discussions to be acquired, citing a company policy ``never to comment'' on potential acquisitions. Melton, CyberCash's president and chief executive, was traveling Thursday and could not be reached for comment. CyberCash's recent woes stem in part from its May acquisition of ICverify Inc., an Oakland, Calif., company that makes credit-card processing software. CyberCash, which purchased ICverify for $57 million in cash and stock, hoped to complement its own technology with ICverify's more conventional ``point of sale'' software, which helps retailers process credit card transactions in shops and other commercial establishments. Entering the ``point of sale'' market was a way for CyberCash to hedge its bets against the uncertain future of electronic commerce, analysts said. ``This gave (CyberCash) a piece of the physical point of payment, as well as the electronic point of payment,'' said Scott Smith, an Internet commerce analyst at Current Analysis Inc. in Sterling. With the addition of ICverify, Condon said, CyberCash could now offer a full package of payment software to potential customers. They could now provide, say, a clothing retailer, the tools to process both in-person credit card transactions as well as Internet credit card purchases. But the ICverify acquisition proved a difficult transition. In recent months, analysts said, some customers of both companies have frozen their accounts, saying they were unsure about which transaction software they would deploy in the future. ``The ICverify transaction resulted in customers taking a close look at what direction they wanted to go in,'' said Weil. Condon said he expects this to be a short-term problem. He said he has spoken to several customers who plan to continue their accounts shortly. People who follow CyberCash generally agree on two things: that if the company can hang on long enough for electronic payments to become a widespread phenomenon, it will be well positioned to cash in. They also say the company has a strong, tenacious management team in place, led by Melton. ``He is the rock the company is built on, and he's committed to the company's success,'' said Smith. ``I don't see anyone there who is ready to back down.'' But in the end, Weil said, the future of CyberCash might rest with forces beyond its control. ``You can't change the psyche of consumers,'' he said. ``CyberCash doesn't have that kind of influence.'' ----------------------- NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ----------------------- ********************************************** To subscribe or unsubscribe, email: majordomo(a)majordomo.pobox.com with the message: (un)subscribe ignition-point email@address ********************************************** www.telepath.com/believer ********************************************** --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' The Philodox Symposium on Digital Bearer Transaction Settlement July 23-24, 1998: <http://www.philodox.com/symposiuminfo.html>

5 8

Re: fwd from spyking@thecodex.com
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Answering Spyking's questions Ray posted in reverse: The Bronx incident started off as a major CB case, with barricades and plastic suits galore, in accord with the push for scare the beans out of the public with imaginary terrorism (another WMD terrorism trial is due to start in NYC shortly). It turns out that what was found were a couple of take-home, mildly radioactive elements (properly contained and marked) of a recently deceased employee of a plant that used them. The story died quickly. NYT covered it twice, once hot, once tepid. Second, what's driving the nationwide push to train First Responders and emergency room staff is Clinton's funding the program with billions, after he read Richard Preston's recent novel on biological terrorism (so said news reports), and got a few heart-thumping briefings from if you only knew blackhearts. Right now preparing for domestic defense against Weapons of Mass Destruction is the hottest career-jumpstart in the nation, and there's a frenzy of competition passing as cooperation among the military, National Guards, intel, FBI, FEMA, state and local cops, EMS, sawbones, Red Cross, CB weapons experts (US and RU), mercenaries, manufacturers, vets and revolving doorers of all the above, and, to be sure, the never-fake-it media goading and exaggerating (our straight-shooting members here excepted, well, except Y2Kites). Like many state and local officials relishing the vital national security role being porked to domestic forces, neatly bypassing the military's limitations, NYC's mayor is happy as a pig in shit with his plan for a new $16m anti-terrorist bunker on the 23rd floor of a buddy's office building across the street from the World Trade Center -- one RPG shot from the 23rd WTC into his impenetrable C4I nest. Rudy loves to watch "Patton" clad only in a Kevlar jockstrap. Of course, he's a "former federal prosecutor," the most common subtitle on TV of disembodied talking heads.

1 0

Update on status of Pauline Hanson's One Nation web sites
by Global Web Builders 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

G'day One Nation supporters in NSW I am Scott Balson, Pauline Hanson's web master and the moderator of the now defunct discussion forum mentioned in a recent news letter. You will notice that I am not using my normal "gwb" email. I apologise for the demise of the very successful discussion forum, but may I say that nothing surprises me any more. The forum was run on a third party web site and the owner took two weeks leave on Sunday - the day before the forum "shut down". Quite simply it was hacked by an unknown person because it was so successful. This is the face of free speech in Australia. NOTE: The hacker was not the site owner. To make matters worse, last Friday, the One Nation pages went down after the ISP we used, Pronet, had their link closed by Optus because of financial difficulties... we have taken remedial action and hope to have the site fully operational in the next 48 hours at: http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation The last few weeks I have seen, heard of and personally faced a growing number of personal attacks aimed at those involved in the One Nation party. In my case this has included being followed while driving my car (last week) and phone calls from the media wanting me to comment on "anonymous", unsubstantiated and trumped-up allegations that were made personally against me. (For example, when questioned about his call to me on Sunday Rory Callinan from "The (News Limited) Courier Mail" confirmed that they would not normally bother with allegations made on this basis but my role within the party had made an anonymous allegation "newsworthy" and worth pursuing.) This follows the party's success in the Queensland state elections. May I just say that this makes me realise that One Nation is obviously having a big impact on those who have got the most to lose and through their actions they have just increased my resolve to do all that I can to ensure Pauline Hanson and the party get a "fair go" on the Internet even if this right is denied by the mainstream media. The events and incidents against the party will continue to be covered on my Australian National News of the Day (anotd) which should be live again soon (also temporarily closed because of the Pronet collapse) The address for anotd is: http://www.gwb.com.au/gwb/news The agenda for getting One Nation back on-line and the discussion form up and running again is as follows: One Nation web site and anotd fully operation by Friday 10th July (probably before) http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation Discussion forum (through GWB) fully operational by end of July. I will keep this group informed when the discussion forum is again operational and once again apologise for the temporary loss of our forum in which to discuss issues. Please do not respond to this temporary account unless it is on a matter of urgency. The gwb(a)gwb.com.au email address will be up and running again by this weekend. GWB Scott Balson Pauline Hanson's Web Master

1 0

Gov Secrecy Reform Act of 1998
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We've transcribed a fax of Senator Thompson's Amendment as Substitute for S.712, "Government Secrecy Reform Act of 1998," passed by the Governmental Affairs Committee on June 17: http://jya.com/s712-amend.htm (37K) Here's a report on the amendment and vote: NCC Washington Update, vol. 4, #25 July 1, 1998 [National Coordinating Committee for the Promotion of History] Senate Committee Adopts Substitute Bill for Moynihan's Government Secrecy Reform Act Senate Committee Adopts Substitute Bill for Moynihan's Government Secrecy Reform Act -- On June 17 the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee met to consider a substitute bill for S.712, the Government Secrecy Reform Act of 1998. By voice vote, with no negative votes heard, the Committee passed the substitute bill proposed by Senator Fred Thompson (R-TENN), the chair of the Committee, and Senator Susan Collins (R-ME). The original bill had provided a framework for reform but had lacked the specifics which this bill provides. The substitute bill make four major changes from the bill that was originally introduced. First, this bill eliminates the section calling for the establishment of a National Declassification Center in an existing agency -- which many had thought could be the National Archives -- and instead expands the functions and oversight responsibilities of the existing Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) and moves that office from the National Archives to the Executive Office of the President. Second, the bill states that classified information must be declassified after 25 years unless, as the bill summary states, "extraordinary circumstances" require that it remain classified. The original bill had a 30 year time limit for most information to remain classified. Third, the substitute bill retains the balancing test of the original bill; however, the revised bill establishes criteria to guide agency classification decisions for weighing the concerns of national security and the public interest in disclosure. The national security criteria are taken directly from President Clinton's E.O 12958 and the public interest criteria are newly developed for the substitute bill. Fourth, the substitute bill establishes a Classification and Declassification Review Board composed of 5 public members to hear agency and individual appeals regarding classification and declassification decisions. Once the report for the amended S. 712 is filed, which is expected to happen in mid-July, then the substitute bill will be referred to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 30 days for their consideration. It is anticipated that the Intelligence Committee may hold hearings and may have objections to the balancing test provision of the bill. Since there appears to be little attention in the House to this legislation and since there are not many legislative days remaining before adjournment, it is doubtful that this legislation will pass in the 105th Congress.

1 0

Secret World of Spice/Freeway of Love
by STUFFED/EUREKA! 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

1 0

Junger et al.
by jkthomson 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Reuters 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has dismissed a law professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the export of computer data-scrambling technology. Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which prevented Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter Junger from posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not violate the constitutional right to free speech. The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court ruling last August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes telling the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of speech subject to First Amendment protection. "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption." Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a version of source code converted into an actual software program that could be run on a computer. The US government appealed the California decision and the issue may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court would overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key." Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an increasingly critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global communications over the Internet. But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by terrorists and international criminals to hide their activities, have instituted strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling products. Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court misunderstood the difference between source code and compiled code. "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative nature of software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, but it does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is speech deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D [06.07.98] ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 [05.14.98] ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of tnbnog BBS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, standardized, and understood, in that order =======================================================================

1 0

No Subject
by VICTOR HERRERA 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

can u help me thank u

1 0

RE: Junger et al.
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think we are in violent agreement here ... Except that it seems odd that speech is no longer 1st amendment protected as soon as it can be interpreted by a machine to do something. So, then, if I want to deny you first amendment protections for something, I can simply write a compiler to turn your words into machine executable code, and suddenly, your words are no longer protected speech. How could that be a reasonable interpretation of functional versus not? Secondly, Gwin said that encryption is a special class of software which is MORE functional. This is definitely a misunderstanding, to say the least. I don't see how any particular class of software is necessarily more or less functional than other classes of software. In the functional sense, all software, when compiled and executed is functional, period (whether it performs according to its original design is irrelevant). Ern -----Original Message----- From: Ed Gerck [SMTP:egerck@laser.cps.softex.br] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 9:09 PM To: Ernest Hua Cc: cypherpunks(a)toad.com; 'cryptography(a)c2.net' Subject: RE: Junger et al. On Mon, 6 Jul 1998, Ernest Hua wrote: >So today, I can write the following: > >1. Find a container. >2. Fill container with explosive substance. >3. Move container to target location. >4. Detonate container. > >As soon as I have a compiler and a target machine that can execute these >instructions, suddenly this is not speech. However, before this >compiler and machine combo exists, event the electronic form of this is >speech! > >How could this be? Gwin has written a phrase which deserves more analysis, IMO -- free from political overtones if we want to be impartial. The phrase can be reworded as: "source code is a device, that actually does a function" The difference and importance here is between syntatic and semantics. Your 4-instruction source code above is not a device today -- it cannot perform any function. It has only syntatics, not the "how to". But, if there were a machine that could supply the proper semantics (ie, actually perform the functions 1-4) then your source code above would be a device. Further, your source code may not be a device today but be a device tomorrow. As another example, bringing together one pound of inert metal with another one pound of the same inert metal was not considered to be explosive -- until U235 was used for the inert metal and properly compressed. The difference is semantic, not syntatic. In that, Gwin is correct. Can the source code actually perform a function? Then, it is a device. Irrespective of the needed platform, in the same way that an electric shaver is a device irrespective of the local availablity of an appropriate power outlet. IMO, even though I consider Gwin to be correct to a very large extent, widespread use of crypto will not come from lifiting such bans ... but from real need -- which does not outweigh the hassle, today. The EFF has a wrong target there. Do you know how much Internet e-mail traffic is encrypted today? Can you believe less than 10%? Notwithstanding the rethoric exercises and limelight it may provide, talking about encryption export bans may not be as effective as desigining better and easier uses of strong crypto -- that can then really drive market, legislation and courts. Need to use is a better key than need to know, it seems. Cheers, Ed Gerck > >Ern > > -----Original Message----- > From: jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com] > Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM > To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com > Subject: Junger et al. > > > > Reuters > > 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has >dismissed a law > professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the >export of > computer data-scrambling technology. > > Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which >prevented > Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter >Junger from > posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not >violate > the constitutional right to free speech. > > The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court >ruling last > August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes >telling > the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of >speech > subject to First Amendment protection. > > "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually >performs > the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides > instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded >circuitry in > a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption." > > Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a >version of source > code converted into an actual software program that could be run >on a > computer. > > The US government appealed the California decision and the issue >may > ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. > > Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court >would > overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses > mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it >unreadable > without a password or software "key." > > Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an >increasingly > critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global >communications > over the Internet. > > But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by >terrorists > and international criminals to hide their activities, have >instituted > strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling >products. > > Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court >misunderstood the > difference between source code and compiled code. > > "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative >nature of > software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic >Frontier > Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, >but it > does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is >speech > deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." > > > > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> >www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh > jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D >[06.07.98] > ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 >[05.14.98] > ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of >tnbnog BBS > >----------------------------------------------------------------------- > Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, > standardized, and understood, in that order > >======================================================================= _ > ______________________________________________________________________ Dr.rer.nat. E. Gerck egerck(a)novaware.cps.softex.br http://novaware.cps.softex.br --- Meta-Certificate Group member, http://www.mcg.org.br ---

6 5

RE: Junger et al.
by Ernest Hua 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't understand ... Did anyone demonstrate the "functionalness" of any arbitrary language via a scanner and a compiler? Why doesn't Gwin understand that the moment one successfully claims that a specific class of source code is not speech by the virtue of the fact that a compiler can transform it automatically into executable code which performs a function, then ANY speech of ANY sort is fundamentally vulnerable to being classified as functional as soon as a compiler can transform it into real machine code. So today, I can write the following: 1. Find a container. 2. Fill container with explosive substance. 3. Move container to target location. 4. Detonate container. As soon as I have a compiler and a target machine that can execute these instructions, suddenly this is not speech. However, before this compiler and machine combo exists, event the electronic form of this is speech! How could this be? Ern -----Original Message----- From: jkthomson [SMTP:jkthomson@bigfoot.com] Sent: Monday, July 06, 1998 7:12 PM To: cypherpunks(a)toad.com Subject: Junger et al. Reuters 3:40pm 6.Jul.98.PDT WASHINGTON -- A district court has dismissed a law professor's challenge to US regulations strictly limiting the export of computer data-scrambling technology. Judge James Gwin ruled late Friday that the export limits, which prevented Case Western Reserve University Law School professor Peter Junger from posting the text of encryption programs on the Internet, did not violate the constitutional right to free speech. The Ohio court's ruling contradicts a California district court ruling last August that said source code -- the instructions a person writes telling the computer what actions to perform -- constitutes a form of speech subject to First Amendment protection. "Unlike instructions, a manual or a recipe, source code actually performs the function it describes," Gwin wrote. "While a recipe provides instructions to a cook, source code is a device, like embedded circuitry in a telephone, that actually does the function of encryption." Neither ruling gave speech protection to compiled code, a version of source code converted into an actual software program that could be run on a computer. The US government appealed the California decision and the issue may ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Civil libertarians and high-tech companies had hoped the court would overturn the export limits on encryption technology, which uses mathematical formulas to scramble information and render it unreadable without a password or software "key." Once the realm of spies and generals, encryption has become an increasingly critical means of protecting electronic commerce and global communications over the Internet. But law enforcement agencies, fearing encryption will be used by terrorists and international criminals to hide their activities, have instituted strict controls to limit the export of strong scrambling products. Lawyers opposed to the export rules said the Ohio court misunderstood the difference between source code and compiled code. "The Ohio court clearly doesn't understand the communicative nature of software," said Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "It's true that software helps to perform functions, but it does so by telling computers what to do.... It certainly is speech deserving of the highest levels of First Amendment protection." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- james 'keith' thomson <jkthomson(a)bigfoot.com> www.bigfoot.com/~ceildh jkthomson:C181 991A 405C EAFB 2C46 79B5 B1DC DB78 8196 122D [06.07.98] ceildh :1D79 59AF ED75 5945 6003 8240 DA34 ACCA 9DE4 6BC9 [05.14.98] ICQ:746241 <keys> at pgp.mit.edu ...and former sysop of tnbnog BBS ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Technology is introduced, utilized, depended upon, obsolete, standardized, and understood, in that order =======================================================================_

5 4