- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Fed appellate judge remarks re anonymity, free speech on the net
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:23 AM 9/13/96 -0400, Brian Davis wrote: >On Thu, 12 Sep 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> At 05:40 PM 9/12/96 -0700, Greg Broiles wrote: >> ... >> >Kozinski also suggested that computer-generated or morphed images of >> >children involved in sexual acts may not be protected under the Constitution >> >because of ongoing trauma to the child, >> >> Which child? Does he understand what "computer-generated" means? >> > >Yes, he does, I think. But I think "protected" above should read >"prohibited." [Note to Greg: could that be a typo?] The key kiddie >porn/1st amendment case (whose name escapes >me for the moment) offered two reasons why kiddie porn could be regulated >in the face of the first amendment. One reason was the "on-going trauma to >the child [victim]."In a morphed image, they is not (or at least may not be) >an actual child victim. Thus the "continuing trauma" rationale for >regulation does not exist in that case. This is what the article says: "Another freedom-of-speech-related concern may be that while computer-generated or 'morphed' Internet images of consenting adults in sexual acts may find constitutional protections, the same may not hold if such images use the likeness of a child because of ongoing trauma to the child, Kozinski says." The only way this makes sense to me is that a child might be horrified to find their face pasted onto the body of a 20-year old involved in sexual activity. But this doesn't seem like a problem for criminal law to solve, it seems like a tort law problem, and I'm still inclined to think that the First amendment protects speech which upsets or horrifies someone. The other rationale I see is the "child porn makes susceptible people go molest children" argument. (And the consequently molested child would then endure ongoing trauma.) The only difference I see between this argument and the argument (which has been rejected in U.S. courts, as far as I know) that adult porn makes susceptible people hurt women is the changing focus from "woman" to "child". But I don't see a big difference between ongoing trauma in adults and ongoing trauma in children, such that one merits special restrictions on otherwise protected speech and one does not. But maybe that's why I'm studying for the bar and Alex Kozinski is on the 9th circuit. :) -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

1 0

Re: "Remailers can't afford to be choosy"
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 13-SEP-1996 04:33:21.66 >By the way, today's remailers appear to be primarily _experiments_ or >_casual services_, not altruistic services for some nebulous idea of "free >speech." (Besides, if it's illegal for "spammers" to use remailers, so much >for "free speech.") Umm.... freedom of the press is freedom for he who owns the press. The remailer operators own the presses; why shouldn't they use whatever means they see fit to determine how they can be used? I encourage people not to discriminate on the basis of the political orientation of what's going through... but spam isn't political speech. (I agree that the government should not be in the business of determining what is spam and what is political speech - all speech should be protected - but remailer operators are not governments.) -Allen

1 0

Re: "Remailers can't afford to be choosy"
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:03 PM 9/13/96, E. Allen Smith wrote: >From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 13-SEP-1996 04:33:21.66 > >>By the way, today's remailers appear to be primarily _experiments_ or >>_casual services_, not altruistic services for some nebulous idea of "free >>speech." (Besides, if it's illegal for "spammers" to use remailers, so much >>for "free speech.") > > Umm.... freedom of the press is freedom for he who owns the press. >The remailer operators own the presses; why shouldn't they use whatever means >they see fit to determine how they can be used? I encourage people not to >discriminate on the basis of the political orientation of what's going >through... but spam isn't political speech. (I agree that the government >should not be in the business of determining what is spam and what is >political speech - all speech should be protected - but remailer operators >are not governments.) There are many nuanced definitions of "free speech." I was replying to someone who used in connection with his belief that remailers primarily exist as a service to enable "free speech." Hence my comment. I'm fully aware of the rights of remailers to limit what they pass on. I just don't think it wise, nor do I think it fits with pious calls for "free speech." --Tim May We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: really (?) undetectable crypto
by jim＠suite.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What about Walter making insignificant changes to the > cleartext and replacing the hash with the new hash? > Because you are using an unkeyed hash (and not a sig) he can > do that and foul up the stegomessage > > Walter can still play silly spooks with your stego if he breaks the > 40-bit encryption. True. The examples was just illustrative. Given unkeyed hashes or 40 bit encryption, Walter could also frame you by replacing your bits with ones that combine into a very incriminating encrypted message and then leaking the key. > The cyphertext/plaintext ratio looks like getting > really huge too. Your messages must all arrive, and > retain the right order. > Hey, I never claimed it was efficient. :-) Actually, the messages don't have to arrive in order. The correct order can be discovered by trial and error (e.g. does this combination decrypt into something readable? No. How about this one?). Depending on the cryptographic protocol, there may be other, more efficient means for sending hidden encrypted messages. If, for example, a protocol requires a cryptographically random confounder to be appended to the front of the plaintext before encryption, you could use chunks of you secret encrypted message for the entire confounder. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

NANDO: Radikal
by E. Allen Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've sent (using wURLd Presence) the URLs of some of the mirror sites to several search engines. -Allen > _________________________________________________________________ > The Peanut Roaster > _________________________________________________________________ > GERMANS PROBE COMPUTER FIRMS OVER ELECTRONIC PAPER > __________________________________________________________________________ > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net > Copyright &copy 1996 Reuter Information Service > BONN (Sep 13, 1996 4:05 p.m. EDT) - Germany's Federal Prosecutor's > Office said on Friday it was investigating a number of so-called > Internet providers because they were giving computer subscribers > access to a radical left-wing electronic newspaper. > A spokesman for the office said the firms were suspected of inciting > criminal activity and advertising for a terrorist group because they > had failed to block access to the left-wing Internet page "radikal > 154." > Among other things, the electronic site provides instructions on how > to sabotage railway lines. Prosecutors consider it to be terrorist > propaganda. > On Friday, the page was still available via major Internet providers > CompuServe Inc, AOL and T-Online, the online service of > telecommunications giant Deutsche Telekom. > AOL said in a statement that it was technically impossible to block > the server where "radikal" originated, and that the page was anyway > now available via at least 30 other servers and in thousands of > electronic copies. > Authorities have been getting increasingly frustrated that radical > left- or right-wing material whose distribution is a criminal offence > in Germany can be picked up here on the Internet from computers in > foreign countries. The server where "radikal" originates is located in > the Netherlands. Chuckle... > Firms giving access to the Internet -- a network of interlinked > computers providing access to millions of electronic pages -- say they > are no more responsible for the contents than a telephone company is > for the conversations it carries. > On Thursday Germany's office for the protection of juveniles for the > first time put an Internet page -- produced in North America by > leading Nazi apologist Ernst Zuendel -- on its list of banned > publications. > But officials conceded that the move was likely to have little > practical effect, and provider T-Online said it had no intention of > blocking the page. [...] > Copyright &copy 1996 Nando.net

1 0

Re: Fed appellate judge remarks re anonymity
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:47 AM 9/13/96, Jim Choate wrote: >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Thu, 12 Sep 1996 17:40:19 -0700 >> From: Greg Broiles <gbroiles(a)netbox.com> >> Subject: Fed appellate judge remarks re anonymity, free speech on the >> net >> >> The article quotes Kozinski as saying "I have a severe problem with >> anonymous E-mailers . . . You don't have a right to walk up to somebody's >> door and knock with a bag over your head." The article says Kozinski likened >> anonymous E-mail to menacing someone. > >I guess the esteemed judge doesn't believe in Halloween.... Actually, seven of the children who came before his court on this charge are still in prison. He sentenced them to between 4 and 7 years. (By the way, some communities have made it illegal for adults to be out by themselves when children are "trick-or-treating." Typically, the laws are vague and are used for harassment, not actual prosecution. And I rather doubt that the costume I plan to wear to Sandy Sandfort's party--"Jeffrey Dahmer," with a bag over my shoulder and what appear to be severed limbs sticking out of the bag--would be "acceptable" to local cops.) --Tim "The Unadahmer" May (I blow up my victims and then cook the pieces) We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I 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, Higher Power: 2^1,257,787-1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: did you go to school?
by hipcrime 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

JMR, is everybody WRONG, who does not follow your line of thinking?????????????? We just disagree, nobody's WRONG here. CypherWimps need, more than anything else, to get down off their high-horses for once. CyberSpace ain't Reality . The reverse is true as well. --HTTP://www.HIPCRIME.com

1 0

Re: really undetectable crypto
by jim＠suite.suite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Your assumptions are correct. Applied Cryptography by > Schneier discusses this method, referring to it as a > "subliminal channel". Why am I not surprised. :-) > Because of the very (VERY) slow transmission times (on > the order of 1 bit/message), he notes it primarily as a > secure method of exchanging keys. > I would think you could do better than 1 bit per message. Using just hashes, I would think you could get at least 4-8 bits per message using a standard Pentium-class machine. Maybe more, I haven't actually run any tests to see how long it would take to generate innocent messages that produces hashes with specific bits in certain positions. > In his discussion, he also incorporated a bit in the > signature, thus assuring the communication is > travelling to the intended recipient unmolested. I don't see why this is necessary. If the hidden message is encrypted using a key (or key pair) known only to Alice and Bob, then Walter should not be able to fool Bob. Walter could disrupt the communications in any number of ways, but he wouldn't be able to generate innocent messages that produce hashes that contain bits that combine to form a message encrypted using a key (or key pair) known only to Alice and Bob. > However, to be "extremely sublime", your method could be > incorporated with otherwise signed messages: while the > signature appearing with your message includes an MD5 > hash, the real "stego bit" is the first bit of an RC4 hash of > the same file, as computed by an external program on the > receiver's end. > The above paragraph has given me an idea: You don't need to send hashes or digital signatures to send hidden encrypted messages. All Alice needs to send is the carefully constructed plaintext. Bob can generate the hashes himself, extract the proper bits and attempt to decrypt the hidden message. If the hidden message does not decrypt, then either the plaintext was tampered with, it was forged, or not all of the plaintext arrived. That being the case, then I think we have a very simple proof that any communications channel, even one that allows only unsigned plaintext messages, can be used to send arbitrary encrypted messages (if a bit slowly). So much for Clipper. Jim_Miller(a)suite.com

1 0

Re: mailing lists
by HipCrime 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>i don't see you sticking your neck out to deal with assholes who think >freedom of speech is secondary to their right not to ever see mail >they don't want. Like hell we're not. What are you guys mad at us for? Thinking that FREEDOM of SPEECH is much, much more important that whining computer nerds who can't push a DELETE button. >i did competitive public speaking from 7th grade until my junior year >of high school where i was also on the debate team for two years. In that case, maybe you should learn to use the SHIFT key. Or didn't debaters in your school take typing and/or learn about punctuation, capitalization, and the other niceties of English communication? >now i make a living as a biochemistry grad student (only a year left >until you get to call me Dr.) where logic is paramount and feelings >are irrelevant. Well, "doctor" why can't you see (with your logic) that junk Email (or "spam") would save many, many forests if it REPLACED junk SnailMail. Isn't it just that your "irrelevant feelings" have been hurt, because someone used your remailer-baby in a way you hadn't planned for ?!? Why not put your money where your mouth is, and bet me (any amount), that spam WILL be socially acceptable by the year 2000. Particularly, when the green-folks discover how many trees will be saved. It'll be a social-mandate, NOT just a suggestion. Want to bet? -- HTTP://www.HIPCRIME.com

5 4

Re: Child Porn as Thoughtcrime
by azur＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

What if someone combined images now generally considered pornographic under current U.S. law, with a pressing political message. For example, a nude pre-teen holding a picket sign saying "F*** Censorship." How would the courts separate the protected speech (content) from the sexual (context)? PGP Fingerprint: FE 90 1A 95 9D EA 8D 61 81 2E CC A9 A4 4A FB A9 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Snoop Daty Data | Internet: azur(a)netcom.com Grinder | Voice: 1-702-655-2877 Sacred Cow Meat Co. | Fax: 1-702-658-2673 7075 W. Gowan Road, #2148 | Las Vegas, NV 89129 | --------------------------------------------------------------------- Just say NO to perscription DRUGS.

1 0