- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

RSA v. PGP Complaint Correction
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Due to a transmittal error the latter half of the RSA v. PGP complaint was omitted from our offering this morning. The full complaint is now available at: http://jya.com/rsavpgp.txt (21K)

1 0

Information request
by DataET Research 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hi, If you are interested in having a high-quality, but extensively inexpensive, Web site designed for you, your résumé, or your company, visit http://www.dataet.com or contact info(a)dataet.com immediately, and request for additional information and/or a free cost and time estimation. Thanks for your time. We hope to hear from you soon. Regards, DataET Research Data Engineering Technologies info(a)dataet.com http://www.dataet.com

3 2

Rwanda and "anarchy"
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Kent Crispin wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 1997 at 08:21:13PM -0800, Tim May wrote: > > At 6:34 PM -0800 5/13/97, Kent Crispin wrote: > > > > >First of all, it neglects to consider that governments may have > > >prevented more murders than they caused. This is unknowable, since > > >we don't have any worthwhile control cases. (I suppose we > > >might examine a state of anarchic chaos (eg Rawanda) and compare the > > >percentage of murders...but such cases are symptoms of other human > > >ills, and cannot be used as a meaningful comparison, I believe.) > > > > Rwanda (or Ruwanda, or...) is a _very_ poor example to pick, as this was > > not any kind of anarchy such as any of us have ever advocated. Rather, > > Rwanda was a near-textbook example of one tribal faction (Hutus or > > Tutsis) coming to power and inititiating a pogrom against the rival > > faction (Tutsis or Hutus). > > > > Calling this an "anarchy" is comparable to calling the pogrom by the > > Third Reich against Jews, gypsies, cripples, and others an example of > > anarchy. > > Nonsense. > > "anarchy n. the absence of government or control, resulting in > lawlessness. 2. disorder, confusion" -- Oxford American Dictionary > > Which part of that would you say didn't apply to Rwanda? I would say "none." Tim is essentially correct. Ironically, we know he's correct thanks to the United Nations and Judge Goldstein's International Criminal Tribunal, which Tim would oppose. (The answer to bad government is more government?) Jean-Marie Higiro was Rwanda's Minister of Telecommunications. He saw the radio turn into a tool of totalitarian propaganda. The killings were encouraged and organized by the government. He was there. Lindsey Hilsum was the only English-speaking reporter in Rwanda when the killings started. She described the situation as "anarchy" because she did not understand the language or the political situation. She later retracted that story, and spent several more months in Rwanda and Burundi documenting what really happened. She eventually testified before the ICT on what she saw. I think she's a really cool person. Raymond Bonner joined Lindsey in Rwanda later. You might recognize his name -- he's the guy who was fired by the New York Times because the Reagan Administration didn't like his reporting on human rights violations in El Salvador. Gilles Peress is a French photojournalist who documented the genocide in Rwanda both for himself and for the ICT. I met these folks and browsed the relevant documentation, recordings, and photos on April 11th. I believe them when they say it was planned. Blaming it on "evil government," though, is ludicrous. There was quite a lot more going on. If you want to look at anarchic chaos, try, maybe, Albania, or Los Angeles after the Rodney King verdict. But even in those cases, the violence had specific targets for specific reasons. It wasn't unstructured anarchy, and it didn't last long. For all the press, there were few deaths in either case. > In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for > obvious reasons. Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't > consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs. There is no such thing as anarchy, and there never will be. -rich http://www.stanford.edu/~llurch/

2 1

BXA Docs
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

BXA has published two short crypto-related docs, both dated May 8, 1997. William Reinsch's testimony on Goodlatte's bill: http://jya.com/bxa050897.htm Press release on Reinsch's ABA talk about the new regulations for financial transactions: http://jya.com/bxa050897-2.htm

1 0

OTP
by lucifer＠dhp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Timmy May's reheated, refurbished, and regurgitated cud is completely inappropriate for the mailing lists into which it is cross-ruminated. \|/ /~~~~~~~\ | O O | -ooo-----U-----ooo- Timmy May

2 1

Re: Rwanda and "anarchy"
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 14:48 5/14/97 -0700, Rich Graves wrote: >Kent Crispin wrote: >> In fact, the correlation between anarchy and war is very strong, for >> obvious reasons. Perhaps that is why most intelligent people don't >> consider anarchy a desirable state of affairs. > >There is no such thing as anarchy, and there never will be. I think it's at least a little tacky for you to ignore recent work which may have already shown your claim to be false. For the rest of you out there, I suggest that you check out AP part 9. There are excellent reasons that people considered true anarchy to be unattainable, because it was considered fundamentally unstable. Even I believed that, before 1995. Now, I've changed my opinion, and for good reason. Anarchy becomes stable if the population can anonymously target those who threaten danger to the rest. AP will do exactly this, so anarchy will become stable. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:16:06 -0400 From: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir(a)vtw.org> To: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com>, fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary At 9:11 PM -0700 5/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: >* The heinous section of the law that would create > broad new Federal felonies for some uses of crypto was > replaced. The amendment, offered by Rep. Delahunt > and adopted unanimously includes eight hurdles: > > "Any person who, in the commission of a felony under > a criminal statute of the United States, knowingly > and willfully encrypts incriminating information > relating to that felony with the intent to conceal > such information for the purposes of avoiding > detection by law enforcement agencies or > prosecution..." > > It's a solid improvement, but this language still has > no business becoming law. Problem is, nobody seems to > have the balls to stand up and yank it. Delahunt, > the amendment's sponsor, said the bill without the > amendment "could have a chilling effect on the > development and use of encryption." He added: "I > recognize that some supporters of this amendment would > like that this section be removed altogether." But it > doesn't seem likely. I'm more than a little surprised at your take on this amendment. This exact language wasn't created by Representatives who don't know better, it was created, shopped, and marketed to the hill by the folks at the ACLU (Don Haines) and EPIC. In response to concerns from the net, they coordinated the letter from many groups to Goodlatte about the criminal provision which just about everyone signed onto. Then, EPIC and the ACLU worked out the language above, and got it passed verbatim in response to the concerns of the net community. They did a great job here and really deserve a lot of kudos. Why are you slighting their work? -S

1 0

Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 07:26:23 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: "Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir(a)vtw.org> Cc: fight-censorship(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: Re: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary Shabbir, You're mistaken. I'm not "slighting their work" -- I called it a "solid improvement." Yeah, I know who shopped this around. I spoke with David and Don about this last week, and didn't write about it then for fear of jeopardizing their negotiations. And come on, you're "more than a little surprised" by my take? Give me a break. My position now is consistent with my position before -- and comes as no surprise. Reread my previous posts. But you're missing the point: this whole "crypto in a crime" section should not be in this bill in the first place. The new portion is much better than the old, but it still has no business being law. -Declan On Thu, 15 May 1997, Shabbir J. Safdar wrote: > At 9:11 PM -0700 5/14/97, Declan McCullagh wrote: > > >* The heinous section of the law that would create > > broad new Federal felonies for some uses of crypto was > > replaced. The amendment, offered by Rep. Delahunt > > and adopted unanimously includes eight hurdles: > > > > "Any person who, in the commission of a felony under > > a criminal statute of the United States, knowingly > > and willfully encrypts incriminating information > > relating to that felony with the intent to conceal > > such information for the purposes of avoiding > > detection by law enforcement agencies or > > prosecution..." > > > > It's a solid improvement, but this language still has > > no business becoming law. Problem is, nobody seems to > > have the balls to stand up and yank it. Delahunt, > > the amendment's sponsor, said the bill without the > > amendment "could have a chilling effect on the > > development and use of encryption." He added: "I > > recognize that some supporters of this amendment would > > like that this section be removed altogether." But it > > doesn't seem likely. > > I'm more than a little surprised at your take on this amendment. This > exact language wasn't created by Representatives who don't know better, it > was created, shopped, and marketed to the hill by the folks at the ACLU > (Don Haines) and EPIC. In response to concerns from the net, they > coordinated the letter from many groups to Goodlatte about the criminal > provision which just about everyone signed onto. > > Then, EPIC and the ACLU worked out the language above, and got it passed > verbatim in response to the concerns of the net community. They did a > great job here and really deserve a lot of kudos. Why are you slighting > their work? > > -S

1 0

Re: Just Say "No" to Congress
by geeman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think I'd like to have some voice in who steps up to the bar to fill the power vacuum, though, after the rapid oxidation within the Beltway. At 09:13 AM 5/14/97 -0800, Tim May wrote: >At 9:14 PM -0800 5/13/97, Lucky Green wrote: >>At 12:19 PM 5/11/97 -0400, Declan McCullagh wrote: >>>You might remember I wrote recently about the DoJ report released this >>>month that calls for new legislation to ban bomb-making info online. Now >>>Feinstein's office tells me she's going to introduce a bill. >> >>Feinswine never saw a gun/mind control bill she didn't like. She is an >>ultra fascist that rose to power thanks to the yellow dog Bay Area voters. >> > >Feinswine/Swinestein is the most despicable of all the politicians in >Congress. (This is not just ideology speaking...her usual-ally Barbara >Boxer is much less swinish, and even has some independent thoughts. I can't >see I often agree with Boxer, but she's not the Big Sister automaton that >Swinestein is.) > >We're basically under assault from all directions. The bozos in Congress >and state governments are spinning out new laws and obscure regulations >faster than we can react...and of course they're using our money to >generate these laws and lobby for them. Further, a mostly-brainwashed >Washington media population is surprising uncritical of these blizzard >drifts of new laws. > >As others have noted, recently James Donald, the lawmakers play the "good >cop, bad cop" game very well. Crypto becomes exportable (good cop), but >only if keys are given to the government (bad cop). Speech is ostensibly >protected by new laws, but new provisions criminalize racist, homophobic, >disrespectful, hurtful, offensive, or unpopular opinions. > >The "there ought to be a law" crowd is in high gear. > >The only proper rebuttal is to reject their view that more laws will fix >the societal ills they perceive. > >Attempting to "work with them" only feeds the good cop/bad cop system, as >the SAFE and Pro-CODE bills show. > >Removing the Washington area as a malignant tumor requiring drastic surgery >remains an option. > >--Tim May > >There's something wrong when I'm a felon under an increasing number of laws. >Only one response to the key grabbers is warranted: "Death to Tyrants!" >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. >"National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway." > > > > > >

1 0

SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 21:11:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Declan McCullagh <declan(a)well.com> To: fight-censorship-announce(a)vorlon.mit.edu Subject: SAFE vote and cutting crypto-deals, report from House Judiciary You get a sense of the inevitable when you're handed a stack of press releases congratulating a committee for passing a bill -- an hour before the vote happens. That's what happened this afternoon when the House Judiciary committee unanimously approved SAFE, a bill that generally loosens export controls on crypto. Now, today's vote doesn't mean that the bill will move to the floor unmolested, and it doesn't mean that all its problems have been fixed. The Judiciary Committee doesn't have jurisdiction over export relaxations, and the bill's opponents pledged to fight when the measure moves to the International Relations committee. Then there's that portion about using crypto in a crime: it's been modified, cleaned up, but not removed. High and low points of today's hearing. I'll keep these short since I've got to get to sleep: * In another blow to the White House, the New Democrat Coalition is demanding that the White House change its crypto-policy. A letter the group of centrist Dems sent to Clinton today said: "We are deeply concerned that current policy restricting exports of cryptography technology poses a real threat to U.S. dominance..." * The heinous section of the law that would create broad new Federal felonies for some uses of crypto was replaced. The amendment, offered by Rep. Delahunt and adopted unanimously includes eight hurdles: "Any person who, in the commission of a felony under a criminal statute of the United States, knowingly and willfully encrypts incriminating information relating to that felony with the intent to conceal such information for the purposes of avoiding detection by law enforcement agencies or prosecution..." It's a solid improvement, but this language still has no business becoming law. Problem is, nobody seems to have the balls to stand up and yank it. Delahunt, the amendment's sponsor, said the bill without the amendment "could have a chilling effect on the development and use of encryption." He added: "I recognize that some supporters of this amendment would like that this section be removed altogether." But it doesn't seem likely. * The word on the streets is compromise. Hyde, chair of House Judiciary, brokered a meeting in his offices yesterday bringing together spooks, law enforcement, Goodlatte, and staffers. He says they're "very close to resolving any difficulties." Rep. McCollum chimed in: "It's just a matter of time before we work something out." Rep. Buyer said, and I am not making this up: "We should be good listeners to the NSA." Rep. Berman: "I hope there would be some way to bridge the differences between the administration and Goodlatte." More on this later... * Rep. Hutchinson introduced an amendment that passed unanimously: (a) The Attorney General shall compile, and maintain in classified form, data on the instances in which encryption (as defined in section 2801 of title 18 USC) has interfered with, impeded, or obstructed the ability of the Department of Justice to enforce the criminal laws of the United States. (b) The information compiled under subsection (a), including an unclassified summary thereof, shall be made available, upon request, to any Member of Congress. Problem is, a similar provision is *ALREADY LAW*. (It passed last year as part of an omnibus spending bill.) Brock Meeks wrote about it in his last Muckraker column: http://www.muckraker.com/ And this is bad news: we already know that piss-poor crypto -- we're talking Brian Milburn-style, or WordPerfect strength -- has interfered with investigations. But with the NSA's help, cops were able to tunnel through it. That's why the Feds should be looking not at whether it *interferes* with an investigation, but whether it has *derailed* one. At least when the NRC report came out last year, not one investigation was derailed through the use of crypto. But even if it has derailed an investigation -- well, that may be the price of freedom... * Rep. McCollum (R-Fl), a real Big Brother type of guy, added an amendment to page 4, line 14 that passed unanimously. Addition is in caps: Subsection (a) shall not afect the authority of any investigative or law enforcement officer OR ANY MEMBER OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY acting under any law in effect on the effective date of this chapter, to gain access to encrypted information. Now what the hell does this mean? Says McCollum: ""it is truly a technical amendment." * Rep. Rothman was the only one who pointed out how government access to keys reduces freedom: "It raises civil libertarian and totalitarian issues for me." He recounted how at a recent hearing he asked the administration: "Let's cut to the chase: do you want to mandate this access?" The reply: "No, no, no." I've said it before and I'll say it again: Congress desperately wants to compromise. They're aching to split the difference, cut a deal, and screw the pooch in the process. Just watch for the backroom scheming over the next few months. And if the worst features of all the crypto-bills are combined into one package that's attached to a huge spending bill that "just has to go through" -- well, don't say I didn't warn you... -Declan

5 5