- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Fw: Re: Calif. AB2560=A Whiff Of Dictatorship....
by jcaldwel＠iquest.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > In addition to the AB 23 bill, which will retroactively felonize a very > > broad class of weapons, here's a new one which will make felons out of > > anyone who goes shooting with others, anyone who teaches a self-defense > > class, and (depending on interpretation by the courts) anyone who gives > > advice here on the Cypherpunks list about weapons, self-defense, and > > explosives and suchlike devices. Let me know when it passes, you note I said *when* and I'll offer advise direct to californicates attorney general via this list. Seeing as states are attempting to persecute non-state-citizens with it's laws it should be interesting. and .45acp beats 9mm

2 1

[NOISE] "Fascism is corporatism"
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:44 AM 6/9/96 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: [A whole bunch of totally irrelevant boring distractions, amongst them]: > The Encyclopedia Brittanica says of Mussolini: > > He read widely and voraciously, if not deeply, plunging into the > philosophers and theorists Immanuel Kant and Benedict de Spinoza, Peter > Kropotkin and Friedrich Nietzsche, G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Kautsky, and Georges > Sorel, picking out what appealed to him and discarding the rest, forming no > coherent political philosophy of his own To argue that fascism has no philosophy without mentioning Maurice Barres is nearly as silly as arguing that communism has no philosophy without mentioning Marx. If you delete all reference to Fascist philosophers, you will of course come to the conclusion that fascism has no coherent philosophy. Fascism got its epistemology from Barres, and its economic theory from Sorel. Your argument is analogous to someone who argues that communism had no coherent philosophy by talking about Mao as if he had popped out of nowhere, and failing to mention Marx and Lenin. In my opinion the most coherent fascist philosopher that preceded the fascist rise to power was Maurice Barres. (Of course once fascism was on the rise, you got a bunch more fascist philosophers, most of them way to the left of Barres.) This thread in philosophy has continued to the present day, though it was abruptly renamed after the defeat of Hitler. Barres's arguments are logically and philosophically coherent, and are clearly and unambiguously recognizable as the epistemology, and much of the claptrap and rhetoric of fascism, and as the epistemology, and much of the claptrap and rhetoric of modern PC, and we can trace the philosophical thread connecting modern PC to Barres through known Nazi philosophers who not merely philosophized, but also participated actively in Hitler's regime, and to direct and immediate disciples of those philosophers, such as Derrida. > > Many of my readers will think I am excessively harsh, calling Rich > > Graves a liar rather than a fool, but I hear the above story > > (that fascism is not a coherent ideology or philosophy) primarily from > > those whose interests this story serves, and if they genuinely > > thought this story was true, they would not know that it is in their > > interests to push it. > Huh? In English, please. Perhaps I was elliptical in the above. I will restate: The claim that fascism lacks an economic program and/or a philosophy comes primarily from those whose economic program and/or philosophy bears a marked resemblance to fascism. If they were not aware of this resemblance they would not so vigorously seek to redefine fascism as military dictatorship, racism, etc. This leads me to doubt the basic human honesty of those who push this line, and their concern for human lives. > Anyway, I never suggested that there was no such thing as fascist > philosophy; just that fascism was not rooted in a well-developed ECONOMIC > ideology, Revisionism alert: I just deleted vast chunks of text from your message above where you presented negative evidence that fascism had no philosophy, and I was just thinking that maybe I had overdone it and would get flamed for deleting arguments rather than answering them. > and that Tim's definition of corporatism is incorrect both in the > abstract and in the cases of Italian fascism and Nazism. Revisionism alert: Tim gave a perfectly correct definition of corporatism, and you then proceeded to give a very similar definition, and you then proceeded to smear Tim by falsely implying that he gave a silly ignorant definition, radically different to the one he did in fact give. You also have carefully avoided mentioning Sorel, who of course advocated roughly the economic problem that Mussolini attempted to implement, that Hitler did implement, and that Timothy May condemned, long before Mussolini got of the ground. Sure sounds like an economic ideology to me. > > Not only do such concepts as feminist science, phallocentric science, > > etc, strongly resemble such concepts as aryan science, jewish science, > > etc, but they are justified using the same arguments from the same > > philosophers. Indeed Heidegger was not only a philosopher of fascism, > > but he personally participated in Hitler's terror, terrorizing his academic > > colleagues, and Paul De Man of Yale University worked directly for the > > Nazis as a propagandist in occupied Belgium. > Here James demonstrates his absolute mastery of the subject. > > Heidegger only really supported Nazism from 1933-34; in the 40's and > thereafter, he referred to Nazism as a disease. Yeah, right, And the only fifty thousand jews were murdered. :-) Historical Revisionism alert: The above is wildly implausible: You do not call Nazism a disease in Nazi Germany and live to tell of it, let alone call Nazism a disease and get appointed to the important and well paid job of terrorizing your academic colleagues. The above is also infamously false: As rector, Heidegger denounced those of his colleagues he wished murdered as jews, including his own teacher, and he organized paramilitary camps for his students, spouting martial rhetoric about the "inner truth and greatness of National Socialism," see citation below. > He is remembered as an > existentialist, not a Nazi, Historical Revisionism alert: See http://www.inlink.com/~dhchase/heidig.htm for how he is REALLY remembered. Heidegger himself claimed at the time, his political activities grew out of his philosophy, and this claim seems to me to be very obviously true. Indeed what he claimed then is equivalent to what I have been telling you in public and private email: That your ideas lead to people being murdered by the state, and therefore you should consider them more carefully. > though he did join the party when he became the > rector of Freiburg. Historical revisionism alert: His most infamous work was his laudatory speech on Hitler given when he was appointed rector of Freiburg. In addition he never disowned his works on the "jewish problem". As rector he imposed Nazism on his colleagues by the usual means. > The fact that Paul de Man, in his early years in Nazi-occupied Belgium, > wrote antisemitic propaganda for a number of local collaborationist journals > was not discovered until four years after his death (by Ortwin de Graef). The fact that Paul de Man's philosophy had a very strong resemblance to fascist philosophy was discovered considerably earlier. The fact that he also wrote the kinds of racist propaganda that are no longer politically correct was merely the icing on the cake. > By the way, I voted for Bush, and no matter how many times you contradict > me, I know I don't support the government's actions at Ruby Ridge. Revisionism alert (or perhaps in this case merely a reinterpretation alert): In previous mail you claimed it was not a government action, it was just a few FBI guys running amuck entirely on their own initiative. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

TST on Cyber Terror Inquiry
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The article Winn Schwartau cited today and a related column: ---------- The Sunday Times (London), June 9, 1996, p. 1/8 Secret DTI inquiry into cyber terror [Insight Column] The government has been holding a secret investigation into attacks by "cyber terrorists" on the City of London for more than two years. The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Bank of England, GCHQ, the secret listening station, and the Defence Research Agency (DRA) are involved in the inquiry. The existence of the investigation, which began in April 1994, emerged after The Sunday Times revealed last week that banks, broking firms and investment houses had paid millions of pounds to gangs that threaten to wipe out computer systems. Correspondence from the investigating authorities, seen by Insight, include letters from civil servants saying they are "extremely concerned" at the evidence of extortion demands. Yesterday the DTI issued a statement confirming the inquiry and suggesting its work had been hampered by the lack of co-operation from City institutions. "We are very interested in the allegations of extortion directed at City of London institutions which were brought to our attention in 1994. We responded then by involving many government organisations, including the DTI, the police, the Bank of England and other agencies. So far, we have not been presented with any hard evidence from victims. We would urge those threatened to come forward," a spokesman said. In one letter, dated May 1995, David Hendon, director of DTI technical affairs, wrote to a company specialising in computer security work stating that he was taking the City extortion issue "extremely seriously". Insight has since seen the evidence passed to the DTI and GCHQ which sparked the investigation. In 1994, a consultant working for a company which undertakes computer risk assessments for City institutions compiled a table of 46 attacks on banks and finance houses in New York, London and other centres, starting in January 1993. The list included details of raids on three British banks and one American investment house. The documents suggested that operations in the futures markets had been a focus for some of the attacks. Documents sent by the DRA, from the office of Professor David Parks, a senior director, indicate that the agency is especially interested in the "weaponry" deployed by the cyber terrorists. The agency believes high-intensity radio frequency (HIRF) guns may have been used to black out trading positions in City finance houses. The weapon disables a computer by firing electromagnetic radiation at it and is a "black programme" at the defence ministry, one of the highest security classification levels. Last December, Parks approached a company which specialises in defensive measures against information warfare and carries out work for GCHQ. For a L30,000 fee it was asked to arrange a demonstration of a portable HIRF weapon in Germany. Details of the HIRF weaponry and its use in the City have also been compiled by Computing magazine, which intends to pass them to the DTI and other authorities. [End] ---------- [Related column, p. 2/4] Held to ransom by superhighway-men Private Account [Column] By Jeff Randall Forget Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, the world's financial institutions have a new type of bank robber to deal with -- the cyber terrorist. Before you start thinking it sounds like science fiction, consider this: the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) this weekend confirmed there is an official investigation into "raids" by gangs of computer experts who threaten to wipe out electronic information and trading systems, unless they are paid off. The DTI spoke out after last weekend's scoop by the Sunday Times' Insight team revealing that some of London's best- known institutions have paid huge ransoms to "electronic highwaymen" to prevent the meltdown of computer networks. These revelations have sent a shiver up the spines of the City's top banks. Financiers are terrified the emergence of a gaping hole in their systems will cause a loss of investor and customer confidence -- and rightly so. Can you imagine calling your stockbroker to buy a few thousand ICI shares, only to be told its entire information bank had been blown away by a Dick Turpin with a PhD in electronic engineering? If, like me, you know nothing about computer technology, and care even less, the temptation is to dismiss the problem as the creation of Arthur C Clarke. But the DTI has acknowledged for the first time that an investigation into these "attacks" has been under way for two years. The Bank of England and GCHQ, the government's secret listening station, are working alongside the DTI in the inquiry. Agencies in Britain and America believe there have been more than 40 raids on investment firms in New York, London and other European financial centres since 1993. Victims are understood to have paid up to L13m a time after blackmailers showed their ability to bring electronic trading in shares, bonds and commodities to a halt. Futures-market systems have been a favoured target of the space-age bandits. In some cases, the blackmailers have used technology developed by military scientists. But here is the paradox: the DTI has been hampered by the reluctance of City firms involved to co-operate. Extortionists have so frightened the investment houses, they fear reprisals if they are discovered helping official agencies track down the gangs. There is also concern that an admission of the threats would diminish confidence in the banking system and create a loss of face for the victims. A banker told Insight: "You will never get a financial institution to admit it has an extortion policy, let alone that it has paid money." That begs the question: who in London has paid up? Insight has been told of at least four blue-chip firms caving in to extortionists. For the time being, we have agreed to keep certain information confidential to preserve the integrity of the institutions while the agencies investigate. But the names will eventually surface, and then there will be some serious explaining to do. [End]

1 0

Fight-Censorship Dispatch #13: The Second Great Net Panic
by Declan B. McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fight-Censorship Dispatch #13 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Second Great Net Panic ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Declan McCullagh / declan(a)well.com / Redistribute freely ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this dispatch: The Second Great Net Panic grips Washington, DC Bruce Taylor tries a "finger" gambit DFC online copyright action alert, press conference Deputy Atty General slams Net, calls for central control Al Gore decries "unwarranted censorship?" June 9, 1996 WASHINGTON, DC -- As a wet spring steams into a muggy summer, the Second Great Net Panic has gripped the nation's capital. It could be the humidity. The same waterlogged air that makes my keyboard stick about this time every year forces lobbyists and legislators indoors to catered receptions and air-conditioned hearing rooms where they catalog the dangers of the Net. Or perhaps election year politics lends this scaremongering rhetoric its rough, serrated edge. Whatever the cause, it's clear that last year's cyberporn scare -- centering around online smut and leading to the passage of the Communications Decency Act -- is dwarfed by this year's fevered attempts to control the Net. That is, you ain't seen nothin' yet. In the last two weeks: * The Federal Trade Commission held two days of hearings to decide how to regulate web sites that collect personal information about children. * Sen. Sam Nunn (D-GA) announced at a Senate investigations subcommittee hearing that his suspicions of evil cryptohackers lurking on the Net mean the CIA and NSA must be permitted to snoop domestically, a practice long prohibited by law. * The Clinton administration responded to Congressional attempts to liberalize export controls on strong encryption with a "Clipper III" white paper, and a blue-ribbon NRC report recommended only minor changes in U.S. crypto export policy. * The Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings where witnesses from the Hollywood copyright lobby testified that copyright thieves plague the Net. * A House Judiciary subcommittee is planning a final markup of HR2441, a terribly restrictive online copyright bill similar to one the Senate is considering, this Wednesday. * The Defense Information Systems Agency released a report claiming that hackers tried to break into Pentagon systems 250,000 times in 1995. * The 1997 Defense Authorization Bill will give the White House six months to report on "the national policy on protecting the national information infrastructure from strategic attack." * At the first-ever "CyberCongress" hearing held by a House committee, representatives complained about being flamed through anonymous remailers and said there should be accountability online. * Today's Sunday Washington Post featured an article by Richard Leiby on the first page of the Outlook section bashing "self-indulgent dross" and "crap" on the Net: "I took out the Internet trash and found there wasn't much left." * Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), chair of Senate Judiciary, held a hearing on June 4 where family values activists testified in support of Hatch's bill that gives you 15 years for creating or viewing a GIF that "appears to be" or is said to be kiddie porn -- even if it's actually a morphed photo of an adult. * Journalist Lew Koch unearthed an alarmist speech by Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick slamming not just nonescrowed crypto but the "social problems" of the Net -- and calling for a new "Manhattan Project" and even a new Federal agency to start "devising and implementing solutions." That's the bad news, and the good news is far from reassuring. Some Congressperns are starting to learn about the Net and the Internet Caucus' membership is growing. The computer industry has begun to become more involved in the legislative process, but they're up against well-entrenched opposition. The EFF's Mike Godwin had it right when he wrote to me earlier today: "Every agency wants a bite of jurisdiction over the Internet." I'm not placing any bets on the eventual outcome of the Second Great Net Panic, especially when protect-our-children rhetoric comes laced with protect-our-country slogans. But I know the summer's starting and some of the keys on my workstation are starting to stick. Yesterday I spent a sweaty afternoon performing open-keyboard surgery to try and get my home row working again. So I'm not too optimistic... +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ BRUCE TAYLOR TRIES A "FINGER" GAMBIT +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Bruce Taylor, the former Federal smut-buster and chief architect of the CDA, is at it again. This time the Brucester is weighing in on the New York CDA case with an expanded copy of the amicus brief he first filed in the Philly lawsuit in which I'm a plaintiff. When I spoke with him last Thursday, Taylor sketched out his latest argument in favor of the CDA -- that it's constitutional because the "finger" service can be modified to return info about whether someone's an adult or a child. "I just learned about 'finger' a few weeks ago," Taylor said. His brief reads: Though the testimony is disputed between the parties, there is evidence in the record to show that there ways to comply with the CDA that are presently available, other means that are possible and trivial to institute, and there will undoubtedly be more and easier ways to comply in the future. Potential mechanisms of compliance include... agreement on an -L18 or digital or access provider user or some other mechanism or combination of devices which allow content providers to identify adult visitors to their sites, pages, or GIFs and thereby exclude children (such as refinement of the PRESENT METHOD OF FINGERING to identify the name of a visitor so that the visitor's access provider or ISP releases the users age as well as his or her identity -- a fact no less anonymous), [Emphasis mine. --DBM] Of course, Taylor's suggestion of putting an "A" or "C" (adult or child) flag in the info returned by finger creates more problems than it solves. Most online services don't provide information about users via finger daemons. More to the point, such a proposal would let any unscrupulous net.lurker troll for "C" flags -- not exactly the best way to protect children! +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ DIGITAL FUTURE COALITION ACTION ALERT, PRESS CONFERENCE +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ In response to a planned House subcommittee markup of its ill-bred copyright legislation this Wednesday, the Digital Future Coalition is planning a press conference at 9:30 am this Tuesday, June 11, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Presenters at the press conference include the Consumer Federation of America, the National Education Association, the American Committee for Interoperable Systems (including Sun Microsystems and America Online), and the Home Recording Rights Coalition. Other members of the DFC include the American Library Association, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, People for the American Way, and the Electronic Privacy Information Center. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIGITAL FUTURE COALITION ACTION ALERT From dfc(a)alawash.org Imminent Congressional action on NII copyright bill threatens consumers, students, and other Internet users Your immediate contacts with key House Judiciary Subcommittee Members critical! The House of Representatives Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property will meet in the next few days to vote on H.R. 2441, the NII Copyright Protection Act. Call subcommittee members who represent you or to your institution NOW and tell them that this badly imbalanced bill shouldn't be voted on unless and until all of the following problems are addressed. If passed in its current form, H.R. 2441 would: * Make it a crime to manufacture the next generation of VCRs, personal computers and other digital devices needed for recreational and educational use by adding a sweeping and overbroad new Section 1201 to the Copyright Act; * Make simply browsing the Internet a violation of the law without a license from copyright owners; * Prevent teachers from using computers to their full potential in "distance education" efforts that bring electronic classrooms to kids, especially in rural communities and for the disabled; * Subject computer system operators -- including online services and networks at schools and libraries -- to potentially crippling liability for the copyright violations of their users. Please immediately fax a letter to -- AND CALL -- all members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property who represent you or an institution with which you are affiliated. These contacts must be made NO LATER THAN Tuesday, June 11 and preferably sooner. Address contacts to the Congressperson, but direct your letter or call to the appropriate staffer. [URL at the end. -DBM] +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ DEPUTY ATTY GENERAL SLAMS NET, CALLS FOR CENTRAL CONTROL +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ It's scaremongering at its finest. That's all I can think after I read the text of a speech Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick gave earlier this year at the Air Force Academy. Gorelick starts with the time-honored horror gambit of terrorists, child pornographers, organized crime groups, and hackers -- but then moves on to rail against the social problems she's found on the Net. "Email flames" and "faceless" chat rooms are threats to family values, she claims. Then she calls for a centralized government agency to deal with the problem of the Internet. Clearly, she says, we need a "Manhattan Project" to fight cybernastiness and net.terrorists: We clearly need one focal point in the government to take the lead in addressing this issue comprehensively -- to develop national policy, coordinate the necessary other agencies, and with industry on developing solutions. We need the equivalent of the "Manhattan Project" to address the technological issues and to help us harden our infrastructures against attack. It might be that we can just designate an existing agency to take the lead. Or we may need a new agency or some interagency body to perform the task... Jeanne Devoto (jdevoto(a)well.com) writes: [It's an] attempt to conflate the threat of computer intrusion with the "threat" of open access to a mass medium. If such a conflation is widely successful, we could see "We must pass this measure to license Internet users/ban indecent language/impose FCC regulation on ISPs - in order to combat the threat of computer crime!" Computers are the equivalent of nuclear weapons? Maybe treating software as a munition makes sense after all. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ AL GORE DECRIES "UNWARRANTED CENSORSHIP?" +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Al Gore sure knows how to play to an audience -- even if it's a bunch of computer geeks who don't like how the White House has embraced and defended the Communications Decency Act. During his commencement address at MIT on June 7, Gore said: But let me also state my clear and unequivocal view that a fear of chaos cannot justify unwarranted censorship of free speech, whether that speech occurs in newspapers, on the broadcast airwaves -- or over the Internet. Our best reaction to the speech we loathe is to speak out, to reject, to respond, even with emotion and fervor, but to censor -- no. That has not been our way for 200 years, and it must not become our way now. Talk is cheap. It's now possible for Washington politicians to speak out against the CDA -- but only because so many mainstream industry and academic groups coalesced around the ALA/CIEC lawsuit. When it counted, Gore did nothing to halt the morality crusaders who pushed the "indecency" standard through Congress. In fact, he embraced the bill, saying in an interview with the Wall Street Journal: This is an early Christmas for consumers. It's a terrific bill... Every concern the president expressed about the initial legislation has been dealt with on a bipartisan basis. He also issued a statement on December 20, 1996: Today we had a victory for the American economy and the American consumer with the bipartisan agreement to create a telecommunications industry for the 21st Century in a way that will lower prices, increase and improve services in telecommunications and preserve the diversity of voices and viewpoints in television and radio that are essential to our democracy. Stay tuned for more reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- A clarification to Dispatch #12: Cherry v. Reno has not yet been formally consolidated with Shea v. Reno. Mentioned in this CDA update: Deputy Atty Gen Jamie Gorelick's speech slamming Net, calling for controls: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2733 Complete DFC copyright Action Alert, with legislator contact info: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2740 Declan McCullagh on "LolitaWatch" and -L18 -- July '96 Internet World: http://www.internetworld.com/iw-online/July96/news.html Declan McCullagh on CDA hearings -- June '96 Internet World: http://www.internetworld.com/iw-online/June96/news.html Bruce Taylor's amicus "finger" brief in NYC CDA lawsuit: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2736 NRC crypto report now online, thanks to John Young: http://pwp.usa.pipeline.com/~jya/nrcindex.htm Brock Meeks on Sen. Sam Nunn's plans for domestic snooping: http://www.hotwired.com/netizen/96/23/campaign_dispatch3a.html Al Gore speaks at MIT about dangers of net.censorship: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2737 Al Gore's 12/95 statement on Telecommunications Act of 1996: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=478 Al Gore calls Telecommunications Act "early Christmas" present: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=469 Al Gore speaks at Penn, greeted by anti-CDA protests: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=1170 Creative Incentive Coalition on copyright, pro-HR2441: http://www.cic.org/ Digital Future Coalition on copyright, anti-HR2441: http://www.ari.net/dfc/ Brock Meeks on online copyright: http://www.hotwired.com/muckraker/96/20/index3a.html U.S. Congressional Internet Caucus: http://www.house.gov/white/internet_caucus/netcauc.html Fight-Censorship list <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/> Rimm ethics critique <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~declan/rimm/> 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.vtw.org/> <http://www.epic.org/> <http://www.aclu.org/> <http://www.cdt.org/> <http://www.ala.org/> <http://www.eff.org/> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

COST CA/WWW Security
by sead＠cost.se 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To whom it may concern: This message is based on some questions recently posted at this mailing list concerning the issues of certification technology, certification authorities and related security applications, especially Secure WWW syste, combined with usage of certificates. For all interested, I would like to invite you to visit our WWW server (http://www.cost.se) where you may find all the information about our current security products. You may also browse our CA infrastructure. In case of any further question, please contact me directly. Regards, Sead Muftic ____________________________________________ Sead Muftic COST - Computer Security Technologies CST AB E-mail: sead(a)cost.se Tel: +46-8-16 16 92 Fax: +46-8-471-7722

1 0

Gore's speech writers
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:02 AM 6/10/96, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. wrote: > Sounds good but I had to laugh when I heard it... is he at odds with >other members of the administration, or is this rhetoric? > [Gore speech elided] You want a serious answer? "Speech writers." Guys at the level of Gore rarely compose their own thoughts. They depend almost wholly on speech writers. William Safire, Patrick Buchanan, etc. (I don't follow Clinton and Gore, so I don't know who their speech writers are.) I read an interesting op-ed piece about how wonderful Bob Dole's resignation-from-the-Senate speech was, about how resonant and thoughtful it was. But the piece went on to point out that the speech was "un-Dole-like." Turns out it was written by Mark Helprin, a former WSJ writer and current novelist. Dole is just a typical politician. Gore is also just a typical politician. To an MIT or CMU crowd he'll give a speech about the importance of free speech. To a San Francisco crowd he'll give a speech about the need to create methods of self-policing of hate speech and limits on speech critical of gays. To a graduating class at "The Farm" he'll give a speech about the reasons the CIA and NSA must wiretap all communications. To his St. Alban's 30th Reunion buddies he'll reminisce about how much fun it was to sit there on Dad's lawn overlooking the Potomac smoking dope. To the Drug Enforcement Administration he'll give a pep talk on how DARE is successfully getting more and more children to narc out their parents. And so it goes. Politicians say what they think their audience wants to hear. --Tim May 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

BUY DIRECT FROM HONG KONG
by sbear＠datanet.com.mx 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

HONG KONG TRADE DIRECTORY BUY DIRECT FROM HONG KONG AND MAKE HUGE PROFITS ON THE NET,MAILORDER,RETAIL STORES ETC!!!!! http://www.vicom.net/books HONG KONG PROFITS... You have heard that there are factories in Hong Kong that produce thousands of products at low give-away prices. But never before have you been able to believe that you could get in on these lucrative profits! SECRET SOURCES ... Only the big importers knew the secret addresses in Hong Kong and who to buy from. We went to Hong Kong, located the low cost sources and have put them in our Hong Kong Trade Directory. FREE SAMPLES... Yes, you can get samples direct from Hong Kong with this complete Hong Kong Trade Directory. Shipments can be made to you by air practically overnight. Your dollars are valuable in Hong Kong. No need to pay high union labor costs in the U.S. or bloated manufacturers' profits. BEST PRICES... Why buy from Hong Kong? It's simple! You want to get the best prices. You want to get exclusive import deals! Imagine, if you will. that you can get the exclusive import rights for the U.S. on a product! If everyone in the U.S. had to buy from you, wouldn't you be able to make a fortune? DON'T DELAY... But, don't delay! Now that we are making our directory available, others will want to get on the bandwagon. There's still time, but you must act quickly to be one of the first to get in on the new low cost buying opportunities. EASY TO IMPORT... Let me assure you that your only cost for getting in contact with nearly 300 manufacturers in Hong Kong that offer over 10,000 products is only $15, and the few cents to send them a letter once you have our Hong Kong Trade Directory. There are no membership fees to pay. No fancy, expensive import courses to take. We've eliminated all of that. FACTORY PRICES... Watches; Bonds; Fashion Accessories; Radios; Garments; Hardware; Handbags; Jewelry; Toys; Hats; Calculators; Decorations; Art; Gloves; Footwear; Foodstuffs; Hair Products; Vacuums; Gift Items; Plastic Products; Photo Equipment; Car Accessories; Lamps; Novelties; Chemicals; Machinery; and much, much more LATEST EDITION... You will get the latest, most current edition and just getting it in your hands will put your fortune within your grasp. MAIL ORDER PRODUCTS... Find a new MAIL ORDER item in our Hong Kong Trade Directory . . . or find a staple item at a new low price or find a source to have a product made to order for you at cheap Oriental prices, and the top quality that Americans demand! It's all here in the ALL NEW Hong Kong Trade Directory. Full, 64 pages . . . complete with photos on every page... WHOLESALE ONLY... Remember this is a wholesale importing directory, not retail; you are dealing directly with the factory in all cases. The Chinese work on low markups seeking their profit from many orders. GUARANTEE! We guarantee that the addresses listed are 95% accurate. We also guarantee that items shown in the Directory are from direct sources who will ship to the U.S.A. GO TO http://www.vicom.net/books For more info

1 0

NYT on Crypto Policy
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New York Times, June 10, 1996, p. A10. The New Encryption Universe [Editorial] The development of inexpensive computer programs and hardware that scramble telephone calls and computer messages to prevent eavesdropping is rapidly transforming the world of cryptography. Once largely the domain of governments and their intelligence services, encryption technology is now commonly used by corporations, banks, securities firms and individual computer operators. It is time to revise Government encryption policy to fit this new universe. A panel of the National Research Council makes a convincing case for doing just that after a careful review of encryption issues. The panel calls on the Government to abandon its effort to limit the development and availability of advanced encryption technology. The Clinton Administration has fought to preserve the Government's ability to access commercial and individual communications for law enforcement purposes by encouraging adoption of a single encryption standard that Government agencies could track and decipher if needed. The Research Council panel leans the other way, urging the commercial development of powerful encryption software even though it would make wiretapping more difficult. It also recommends that Washington ease restrictions on exports of encryption technology. The Government has long framed the debate over commercial encryption around its need to fight crime through wiretapping. The panel recognizes the usefulness of court-authorized wiretaps. But the panel suggests that a more important issue is the ability of the private sector to transfer confidential financial and other data over telecommunications pathways without interception. The Clinton Administration wants the private sector to adopt a type of encryption technology, known as key escrow, that would give the Government the ability to unscramble private phone or computer messages with court authorization and thereby preserve its wiretap capability. But the policy has so far failed several practical tests. The private sector has not voluntarily adopted a Government-controlled technology. In addition, encryption programs are already available that allow almost anyone with a computer and modem to work around Government-controlled technology. One sophisticated system would allow two strangers -- people who had swapped no private passwords -- to read each other's encoded messages. It seems likely that the Administration approach will not succeed. If so, the danger is that Washington might move to outlaw encryption technology it has not approved, a step that would grossly violate American civil liberties. The best way for the Government to protect its ability to eavesdrop on domestic and foreign criminals is to stay technically ahead of them. The panel recommends vigorous Government research programs to that end. The Research Council group would permit American computer companies to export more powerful encryption software than currently permitted. Foreigners already have access to encryption systems that are more powerful than those American companies are allowed to sell. The export restrictions do nothing to keep encryption software out of the hands of criminals and hostile governments, but needlessly drive American exports out of foreign markets. The panel's conclusions are especially credible because its membership was not tilted against the Government. The 16-member panel was led by Kenneth Dam, a former Deputy Secretary of State, and included Benjamin Civiletti, a former Attorney General, and Ann Caracristi, a former deputy director of the National Security Agency. The Clinton Administration should take notice. It needs a new encryption policy. --

1 0

TWP on Crypto Policy
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The Washington Post, June 10, 1996, p. A18. Global Village Cops? What will be the long-term effect of Internet technologies on global law enforcement? The amazing story of Bill and Anna Young, a k a Leslie Rogge and Judy Kay Wilson, offers one possible scenario. The pseudonymous Youngs, residents of Guatemala who the FBI says have been on a decade-long run from U.S. justice since Mr. Rogge was convicted of a string of bank robberies and other offenses, turned themselves in to authorities after a neighbor recognized Mr. Rogge's face on the FBI home page's Most Wanted list. According to a story first told in the Guatemala Weekly, the person who recognized him was a newly Internet-wired 14-year-old. The vision of the future evoked by this story, of a world in which the familiar "global village" becomes a place not just of instant communication but of neighborly nosiness and where no one can just melt into the crowd, is reassuring and unnerving in about equal proportions. (What if it were a network of hit men or an authoritarian government seeking a dissident, rather than the FBI, making use of this powerful technology?) But it's also worth keeping in mind that, other than the romance of the technology, it doesn't represent that great an advance on current global media that have made celebrities or fugitives' faces familiar to a vast public -- just ask Salman Rushdie. The Rogge nabbing is the first that the FBI credits to its home page specifically, but TV's "America's Most Wanted" has scored similar coups. The impossibility of predicting the exact shape of these extensions of policing is relevant as well to a report that the National Research Council recently issued on another computer technology issue -- the vexed matter of whether to ease export controls on encryption software, which encodes information sent electronically so that only a user with a key can decipher it. The government until now has resisted lifting controls on "uncrackable" encryption software -- that is, codes that are too complex to be broken by brute force -- unless the industry agrees to deposit keys in an escrow arrangement with a third party so the government can seek and obtain a warrant to read encoded communications if necessary. Software makers, meanwhile, are pushing hard to have these restrictions eased. The research council, an arm of the generally neutral National Academy of Sciences, sought to bridge the gap between industry interests and such government agencies as the FBI and national security agencies, whose case, they say, is based largely on classified matter that can't be publicly discussed. Part of the report's conclusion, which favors the easing though not the abolition of current restrictions, is that wider use of encryption technology will actually *help* national security and law enforcement because more data, economic and otherwise, will be secure to begin with. But if the news of the changing terrain tells anything, it is that it is far too soon to base arguments on such a premise. Our own sense on encryption is that the national security and law enforcement questions remain too important to be sacrificed lightly, despite the considerable economic interests of the parties on the other side. But the world of Internet law enforcement is still taking shape. Whatever the public conclusion on encryption, the debate should not rest on any assumptions about what that shape will be. --

1 0

New signature
by Blake Wehlage 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Ok you all happy now i made my signature 4 lines. After god knows how many people were bitching at me to change it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Blake "Pokey" Wehlage Gaa- 3.69 (for ice hockey goalie) <jwilk(a)iglou.com> President of Revolution Software Quote- Does whiskey count as beer? -Homer Simpson Current Girlfriend - Lindsey Wilcox ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0