- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Bell, Detweiler, Ravings, and Whatnot
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I appologize for being trolled into more Assassination Politics discussion. I'll try to sit down, and be quiet and good. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Re: Lawz to be.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 09:55 PM 3/6/96 -0500, Matt Blaze wrote: >> No, what the wording seems to outlaw was the use of encryption to obstruct >> the commission of the crime, not the investigation. Read it again please. >I suppose you could parse it that way if you really wanted to, If you acknowledge that, you are agreeing that a prosecutor could take that position to court, and until the Supreme Court decides he's wrong, he gets to harass citizens. > but it seems to me that the obvious meaning of this rather tortured language: > "Whoever willfully endeavors by means of encryption to obstruct, impede, or > prevent the communication of information in furtherance to a felony which > may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, to an investigative or > law enforcement officer shall..." >is "...willfully endeavoring to obstruct by means of encryption the >communication to an investigative or law enforcement officer information that >is in furtherance of a felony..." But what, exactly, is included in that latter meaning? Does a person who runs an anonymous encrypted remailer, who is fully aware that somebody could be using his system at any moment to break a law, classify as in violation? That's the problem, I think: The government wants to shut down the USE of encryption among those it decides to target, while ostensibly keeping encryption legal. >I think no reasonable person (judge, jury or prosecutor) would interpret >it any other way. You're just as optimistic as Weinstein. I'm not. > Fortunately, the law is not a program that gets run on a >computer. People have to interpret it. That's a mixed blessing. Are you aware of the fact that in the 1930's, the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer growing corn and feeding it to his pigs was engaging in "interstate commerce" because (the court "reasoned") if he didn't grow the corn it would have to be brought in to the state from another state (or displace other usages which would, themselves, have to need a similar import) so he was doing "interstate commerce." (and just a few years later, in three separate cases, they upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans on the west coast as a preventative measure...) Ignore this all you want, but the fact is that judges are sleazy people who will do exactly what they want to do regardless of how wrong it is. > In the case of this section, the >awkward wording is an artificat of several iterations of narrowing it from >what was originally a rather broad crime (as it still is in the House bill). Whose fingerprints are on this portion of the bill? >I would rather have the awkward (but still clear) wording than a broader crime. I don't want any "new crimes," except possibly those that punish acts by government employees and officeholders. >As it stands, several lawyers whose judgement I trust have told me that this >provision is worded narrowly enough to apply only to people who can already >be conviceted of the underlying crime and who can be proven to have used >encryption for the SOLE purpose of thwarting law enforcement. That's not how the proposed law reads. I realize that what you were given may be the "Walt Disney" version of the law, but reality will be dramatically different, I can assure you. Maybe you ought to ask one of these lawyers if he is willing to write a legal brief describing the "worst-case scenario": What a malicious prosecutor COULD do with this law if he so chose. And remind him that the operators of encrypted remailers don't have the funds to take any appeals to the Supreme Court: Lawyers are usually trained to knee-jerk assume that they can eventually get the "right" decision from the SC, which assumes _they_are_hired_ by a defendant who can afford this route. > I don't like >this new crime (since it still stigmatizes encryption as being something >criminals use), but I can probably live with it. I cannot. I _will_not_. >Personally, on balance, I think the bill, as written, is a big >enough step forward to be worth supporting. >-matt It sounds like you're assuming that this bill is a "take it or leave it" type of proposition. I'm not. I see no reason to come to some sort of a "Siskel and Ebert"-type of thumbs-up/thumbs-down decision on the whole thing. I'll say it again: If the only way this bill can be passed is the inclusion of this particular section, then that must mean that somebody "out there" must want that part REALLY badly. And if they want it that badly, I want it gone even more! Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMUMjBvqHVDBboB2dAQGAlgP+IbkQsBm3FPKQNGQe/RvYAYHaoPvWVeZd 86AFx8hqi60nWvWUsAnZ0qGofjaMf1xNW49XKPOhY1lM3uJmeOnp4Wai0UOcwzSM qvUufKkgyeEjC0RJgWqGWg1lKVmHKp4O3mava8jjYv8xQ4yYHP+yvHkAtGN9iLZr 3hjxMBp5S+8= =2Ym6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 2

Fwd: Paint War
by Perrin . 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

remember................... You Can't Get Someone Whos Already Shot You!!!!!!!!!! ssssSPLATTTT!!!! SHMUSH * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * hehe...couldn't resist!!! (Hey, wipe the paint off the side of your head...LOL) :-) RUMMOR HAS IT THAT THIS IS A PAINT WAR........AND YOU HAVE BEEN SPLATTED..........SO.......TEE HEE......I GOT YOU FIRST !!!!! TEE HEE HEEE........NEENER NEENER NEENER.....YOU HAVE BEEN PAINT SPLATTERED !!!!!!!!! You Are Now Officially Involved In "Paint War '98" You Have taken A Severe Shot To The Head. You must Get As Many People As You Possibly Can. ------------ Fixed by Perrin pleontks(a)Hotmail.com http://members.tripod.com/~pleontks http://www.angelfire.com/az/69frank69 ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

Re: Leahy's guillotine.
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:11 AM 3/10/96 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >Now, if they make this a felony, surely conspiracy to participate in >such activities could eventually be made illegal, and if the DemoPublicrats >get re-elected, it probably will be some day. But this law doesn't do that >yet. As far as I can tell, whether a pol is Republican or Democrat tells us nothing about how s/he stands on issues such as free speech and free crypto. I am feeling friendly toward Lehey and Weld these days and hostile toward Feinstein and Buchannan. We need to treat them as individuals. We need to learn and publicize their positions on the issues that interest us. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

RE: FCC & Internet phones
by A. Padgett Peterson P.E. Information Security 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I rote: > You seem to forget that the Internet is just about the *only* electronic > communications media not controlled/licensed by the FCC in the US. The > FCC also prohibits use of cryptography by those with amateur licenses. Bill wresponded: >Oh, we remember it :-). But actually, large chunks of the Internet's >facilities _are_ on controlled or semi-controlled media, such as >frame relay (which the Feds just insisted had to be tariffed) or >local private-line (which is often regulated by state PUCs.) Do not disagree, just is not regulated by the FCC the same way radio stations are. Today we think (if you do) of Zenith as manufacturer of computers (owned by Thompson), cable TV decoders, and televisions (Samsung ?). However seventy years ago, Commander MacDonald "willfully" (having notified Herbert Hoover) started broadcasting station WJAZ in Chicago on a frequency reserved for Canadian stations (have a copy of a photograph *somewhere* showing the 1925 station crew in Pirate costumes) in direct violation of a Department of Commerce order. Shortly thereafter Congress passed a law creating the FCC. History tends to repeat itself. Warmly, Padgett

1 0

Re: Another Motivation for the CDA (Federal Sentencing Guid
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:08 AM 3/10/96 -0500, JonWienke(a)aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 96-03-09 04:05:26 EST, you write: > >>At 9:59 PM 3/8/96 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote: >>>The pizza guy was a thug, but twice as many third-strikers got >>>their third strike for marijuana as for all violent crimes combined. >>>I assume most of these had large quantities, possibly intended for sale, >>>and a number of them had real crimes as their previous felonies >>>rather than Prohibition-related offenses. But you can get legally >>>serious quantities of marijuana by just growing a couple of plants. >> >>I wonder how many of these drug dealers previous "real crimes" were related >>to using violence to protect their drug business, defense which would have >>used the courts and police had drug dealing been legal. > >What difference does that make? If you are deranged enough to murder someone >because they are selling crack in your territory, you are deranged enough to >shoot your manager after getting fired from McDonalds, or to do any number of >heinous things that ahve nothing to do with drug laws. Sick people will >still do sick things, even if some of them are legalized. Back over 20 years ago, some acquaintances at the time stopped working in the drug trade because it became necessary to carry fire arms to protect against having your drugs or money stolen. Other people of course carried the guns, and I assume used them at times. This violence would not have occurred had the drug trade been legal. Remember that here in California, about 70% of the people think killing someone is a suitable punishment for certain crimes. Many people also think that violence in defense of life or property is a reasonable act. Are all these people "deranged"? Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

MS Access encryption?
by Ed Carp 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Anyone know how secure the encryption is that Microsoft uses in its Access database product? I was asked that by a client, but didn't know the answer....thanks in advance. -- Ed Carp, N7EKG Ed.Carp(a)linux.org, ecarp(a)netcom.com 214/993-3935 voicemail/digital pager 800/558-3408 SkyPager Finger ecarp(a)netcom.com for PGP 2.5 public key an88744(a)anon.penet.fi "Past the wounds of childhood, past the fallen dreams and the broken families, through the hurt and the loss and the agony only the night ever hears, is a waiting soul. Patient, permanent, abundant, it opens its infinite heart and asks only one thing of you ... 'Remember who it is you really are.'" -- "Losing Your Mind", Karen Alexander and Rick Boyes The mark of a good conspiracy theory is its untestability. -- Andrew Spring

2 1

Bell, Detweiler, Ravings, and Whatnot
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:12 AM 3/10/96, jim bell wrote: >In short, the government is trying to head off "crypto-anarchy," which I >guess is Tim May's trademark. I suggest that we don't allow them to; it >will merely make the government's eventual end even bloodier. Not my "trademark," though it was my coinage (in 1987). I'm happy it's gaining usage, by people as diverse as David Friedman, Dorothy Denning, and various journalists. (By the way, I also figured out the anonymous markets for assassinations bit, too, in 1988, and discussed it in detail then with Eric Drexler, Marc Stiegler, Mark Miller, Robin Hanson, and others. Several of us on the Extropians list discussed the implications, countersteps that might be taken, etc., several years ago. I recall incisive comments by Robin Hanson, David Friedman, Hal Finney, Nick Szabo, and others. And on this list, the topic was discussed a bit later. The archives may be helpful...though I'm not sure I want to help Jim Bell figure out the holes in his logic!) Note to Jim: Your posts are getting longer and longer, often including huge chunks of previous posts. I doubt many of us are reading these "novellas"...I am responding to this part of your latest massive post because I detected my name being used. I urge you to try to limit your quoting to about a screenfull or so...this is what a lot of experience has said is the maximum amount of quoting people are willing to deal with in most cases. And your insulting comments about people whom you disagree with, or people whom you think are not taking your ideas seriously enough, are reminiscent of the ravings of the last victim here of late stage Detweiler's Syndrome. --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, Higher Power: 2^756839 - 1 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Boycott "Applied Cryptography" and AT&T and RSA
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:40 PM 3/6/96 -0800, anonymous-remailer(a)shell.portal.com wrote: >Bruce Schnier (Author of applied cryptography) and Matt Blaze (Who >is a crypto bigwig at at&t) have made it clear that they support >key escrow. Both have written letters in favor of the new crypto >law, it creates a key escrow system and also other restricts on >crypto. The letters are on the CDT homepage and i think were >posted here. They support a bill which is aimed at easing the restrictions for the uses of cryptography. Judging from what I have read from their positions, they view the bills as having more positive effects than negative effects. (Which may or may not be true...) >WHAT THE FUCK?????????????????????????????????????????? Sudden capslock stickage? >EFF, EPIC, VTW and almost everyone else (except for Bizdos at RSA, hmmmm) >have all come out against this piece of shit. But with these so called >experts baking it it could pass anyway. I think that you are infering evil intent where there is no evidence of same. The bill does have some major flaws, but it also has some major advantages. Being the cynic that I am, I think that the "use of crypto in a crime" provisions are a big negative. Others are not nearly as cynical however. >Maybe the ltrs are a forgery? We should ask them, and if this is true, LETS >SEND THEM A MESSAGE!!!!!!!! SWITCH YOUR PHONE SERVICE AND TELL AT&T WHY!!! >STOP RECOMMENDING APPLIED CRYPTO (THERE ARE EASIER BOOKS ANYWAY). DEMAND >THAT THESE PEOPLE STOP GIVING AWAY YOUR RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Posting in all caps will not help you convince people of the correctness of your position. Claiming conspiracys involving people who have better reputations for supporting crypto than yourself will not help either. If I were to charge people with complicity in conspiracy, yours would be one of the first in line. (Though a pretty lame one at that... Trying to smear people who have actual reputations with juvinile assertions and b1ff style postings is not the way to win the hearts and minds of the Cypherpunks(tm).) BTW, good luck in trying to boycott AT&T. They own alot more than you can imagine. "You Will! And the people to make you do it -- AT&T!" | Remember: Life is not always champagne. Sometimes it is REAL pain. | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

1 0

Re: rhetorical trickery
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> all my respondents seem to be missing some basic points I have been > trying to make about law enforcement in the US. > > the law runs on proof, and evidence. a file with the name "diary.pgp" > is not incriminating. it is not evidence. no one could be prosecuted > as a criminal for having a diary. there is the presumption of innocence > unless there is evidence and proof to the contrary. A diary isn't illegal... but if you are suspected or even convicted of a crime, and there's reason to believe that a book or computer file is a diary and that you wrote about more crimes in the diary, then it's worth investigating. Just as if one is suspected of money laundering and it is known that that person has Swiss or Cayman Island bank accounts... having them doesn't mean one is guilty, but if there is other evidence that the crime took place then they are well within the realm of investigating. > furthermore, suppose > the "pedophile" is actually prosecuted successfully. does that mean > the diary was incriminating? no, it does not. in the CA case it happened [..] No. It's just another area of potential evidence. > that the pedophile was prosecuted without decrypting the diary. which > in fact argues in favor of the side that says, "cryptography is not > the end of law enforcement, and this case proves it." One can argue that, yes. In fact I remember some LE type who was pro-crypto who insisted the DT Bill was for lazy cops who didn't want to do the footwork necessary for an investigation. Another is when they cited the World Trade Ctr bombing... seems they already had a handle that it was in the works and did nothing anyway. DT or a crypto-ban or GAK would not have prevented that. [..] > now, a person might be successfully prosecuted for obstruction of > justice, or contempt of court, in refusing to hand over the > decrypted diary (but the other post I made about giving the federal > agents a key that decrypts the file to a cookie recipe handles this > quite nicely). And in some ways one has less rights when in contempt of court then when convicted of a felony.... [..] > please, will people stop sending me responses like the above? do you > understand how the American legal system works? a person cannot > be prosecuted without evidence. evidence cannot be illegally obtained. [..] Ideally, that is how the system works. But if they have a good reason to suspect something is evidence (and in the above pedaphile ase a file named "diary.pgp" would probably qualify) a warrant can be obtained. Note that just having PGP-encrypted files would not necessarily be evidence either. They pointed out a specific file with specific reasons why it should be examined. > a person is not required to testify against oneself. these are all > basic long-established cornerstones of our legal system. It's not clear in terms of court rulings whether handing over decryption keys is self-incrimination or not. From what I have heard, the courts do not view safe combinations as self-incriminating... > look, if someone WANTS to be put in jail for having encrypted files, > I'm sure you can probably figure out some way to pull it off. but > if you don't act like an idiot, such a thing is highly unlikely. it > clearly has not happened to date. Doesn't mean it won't... [..] > such deep fear around here about life in the US today? I'd say > that people here are high up on the list of creating the paranoia. > be careful what you fear, you might get it. Good point indeed. "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." (Flames for an FDR quote from raving anti-socialists will be bounced to /dev/null.) Rob. --- Send a blank message with the subject "send pgp-key" (not in quotes) to <WlkngOwl(a)unix.asb.com> for a copy of my PGP key.

1 0