- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

hacked version of PGP - win95 long filenames
by David Rosoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I suffer from the great misfortune of a dos computer, and despite my anti-micro$oft efforts, I still am stuck, most of the time, with Windows 95. This OS assigns long filenames (the sensible kind, that is) to the old-style eight-character and three-character separated by a dot. However, they did it in such a way that old filenames still work. So if I have a file I want to encrypt, PGP will mess up this system. oldname.txt -> oldname.asc This is the normal way PGP would encrypt. However, f I have assigned the oldname.txt file a new file name under the win95 system, it will look something like this. "Old File" (oldfil~1.txt) This conforms with the new scheme. If I PGP encrypt, this happens: oldfil~1.txt -> oldfil~1.asc Thus, the new filename is lost, both for the ciphered file, and for the file once I decrypt. Is there a way (aside from not using long filenames) such as a hacked version of PGP that has a workaround for this problem? Also, is this an issue on the list of improvements for future official versions of PGP? =============================================================================== David Rosoff (nihongo o chiisaku dekimasu) -------------> drosoff(a)arc.unm.edu For PGP key 0xD37692F9, finger drosoff(a)acoma.arc.unm.edu or get from keyservers pub 1024/D37692F9 1995/07/01 David Rosoff <drosoff(a)arc.unm.edu> Key fingerprint = 25 7D AA 01 85 41 43 89 50 5A 33 76 F1 F1 99 67 I accept anonymous mail. If I didn't sign it, you don't know I wrote it. === "Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will / To strive, to seek, to find-- and not to yield." <---- "Ulysses", by Alfred, Lord Tennyson -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMbTExRguzHDTdpL5AQGo5QP/QqZw0PLK5/jNY42nbJ/VRrAj8g62FK7q zxWMVbindqQZaOYRtNVHy28rzjkBy+ybzhWetmLgny4f2zdUFkTf5OgZ0r27oOGQ 93VmAK8FoMTBhtje3y4OjWc2uqqHWSYkhjZVYWVCxVcFL1GA6FMkIs8pnzqb5Ohy ShWTgpaV6OM= =SLEx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: NYT on NTT/RSA Chips
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:53 PM 6/4/96 -0400, Ted Garrett wrote: >At 09:12 AM 6/4/96 -0800, someone claiming to be <jimbell(a)pacifier.com> wrote: > >>Maybe it's just me, but the solution to NTT's problem is obvious. Even >>assuming that the export of this software would be against the law, why >>doesn't somebody simply violate that law? RSA would publish that software, >>possibly encrypted with NTT's public key, on a public system protected >>against direct export. "Somebody" would download it, write it to a floppy >(...) >>As far as I know, there is nothing wrong with NTT using this software even >>if it is assumed to have been exported illegally. Obviously, NTT won't >>_ask_ for somebody to do this, because then the government will claim it was >>all a conspiracy, but that doesn't prevent NTT from being the beneficiary of >>somebody else's activities. > >What is wrong with this is that, because RSA did not, in practice deliver >the software to NTT, they can have no expectation of payment. No, the copyright is still valid, and NTT couldn't use the software without appropriate payment. > Thus begins >a trumped up lawsuit in international court, and it will eventually cost >RSA more to collect on the sale than the sale was worth. As many rock-solid >implementations of the RSA algorithms as are out there, all NTT has to do >is go to an FTP site in the netherlands. Done deal. But what about the >copyrights (which are still unclear) and the US patents? NTT would not be >able to market their system in the US without losing face. The purpose of the strategem I described is NOT intended to allow NTT to use software without paying. NTT and RSA are probably on very friendly terms, anyway. The purpose is to compartmentalize the illegality to an unidentifiable person, allowing NTT to use the software without having violated any law. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Richard Stallman on RSA, Zimmermann, crypto
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Richard's comments below are very much worth reading. Also check out the following URLs for back fight-censorship messages about the RSA/Zimmermann conflict... MIT's Seth Finkelstein on RSA/Zimmermann history: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=639 Background on RSA's involvement with recent crypto legislation: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=1613 http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=1614 http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2282 -Declan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 20:18:05 -0400 From: Richard Stallman <rms(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: declan(a)well.com Cc: rms(a)gnu.ai.mit.edu Subject: Re: FW: CWD--Crypto Gets A Nuke (fwd) As an opponent of Clipper--I debated Dorothy Denning on NPR once--I was glad to read about the new Japanese encryption chip. But that chip is not the right solution for most people who want to use encryption. For example, I'm considering using digital signatures. I don't need the high power that requires special expensive hardware, and I would rather not have to buy it. What I would really like is free software, which I can run on an ordinary PC, to do the job. Unfortunately, there isn't any. RSA Inc. made sure of that. Zimmermann initially intended to release PGP as free software. But RSA Inc threatened him with a patent suit, and forced him to change the distribution terms. Now PGP in the US uses RSAREF, which is restricted by a patent license to non-commercial use only. In other words, only hobbyists and academics can use it. There is a commercial version which is proprietary software, and apparently not many people want it badly enough to buy it. The version of PGP used outside the US is free software, but if you use it within the US, RSA Inc. can sue you. This is very bad for people who would like to use PGP. But it is worse than that. It affects the political battle too. PGP had a chance to create a constituency of Americans who demand the right to use encryption. If PGP had been allowed for use in business, not just by hobbyists, we would have far more Americans who care enough to fight against Clipper--and they would include businesses which have the funds to influence legislators. RSA Inc. prevented this from happening, and did so for no reason except money. Bidzos and Rivest would like to present themselves as the defenders of our freedom to use encryption. And it is true, they would like us to be able to use encryption, as long as we are required to pay them for doing so. But when they had the choice of letting us use encryption freely or stamping it out, they chose the latter. I hope you won't portray them as heroes.

1 0

Re: Cost of brute force decryption
by Deranged Mutant 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 4 Jun 96 at 10:58, Bruce M. wrote: [..] > "If you can ensure secrecy either until no one cares about the > information or so that cracking the code costs more than the information > is worth, it's 'secure enough.' > > "For example a 40-bit key takes about $10,000 worth of supercomputer > time and two weeks to crack. Although this key may be adequate to > protect my checking account, it's probably not large enough for the > accounts of a major corporation. [..] The figures look familiar. No references around. I'm not sure it would require a whole two weeks for 40-bits, though. Possibly less than a day? (Or was that why you asked baout the figures?) The "$10,000 worth of supercomputer time" is fuzzy. One thing that's left out is that once an organization already owns the equipment and has the money to spare, it may be worthwhile to crack things of less importance like personal checking info, email, etc. Rob. --- No-frills sig. Befriend my mail filter by sending a message with the subject "send help" Key-ID: 5D3F2E99 1996/04/22 wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com (root@magneto) AB1F4831 1993/05/10 Deranged Mutant <wlkngowl(a)unix.asb.com> Send a message with the subject "send pgp-key" for a copy of my key.

4 3

Re: Java
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I find myself agreeing with nearly all the points about Java that Larry is making, so something may be wrong.... At 8:58 PM 6/4/96, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote: ... >I suppose if I was over 40 and worked in a conservative wall street firm, >I'd have a totally different view. maybe Java is all about a generation >gap in computing. hey!! the first language that the "older generation" >hates. sounds like a good reason to go after it, sort of like rock-n-roll >and Woodstock suddenly being aged and uncool. This can't be the whole story. I'm 44, and Java looks pretty damn exciting to me, too. Not exciting to stand elbow-to-elbow and be trampled the crowds at Moscone Center for Java One, but exciting enough to get the Metrowerks Java compiler for the Mac and half a dozen or so of the Java books (some of which are even pretty good--I most like "Core Java" and the Gosling book). I don't have the energy or time to write a Detweiler-length article about Java (though I think I did a month or so ago), but will say that I think the security problems are, first of all, no worse vis-a-vis the language itself than problems with any language. For me, the main attraction of Java lies not in the applets, but in the Net-centric model that makes, in theory (and hopefully in practice) a Macintosh roughly the equal of a Sun or SGI or Pentium. Until Java and associated programs and tools appeared, I was seriously thinking about getting a Pentium or Pentium Pro (shudder, even though I admire my former employer and current stock benefactor, Intel) and putting Linux on it. Now I feel more confident that the Mac is a viable competitor in a Net-centric world. Java may be the Great Equalizer (something Sun may come to regret). Perry has some valid points vis-a-vis the most naive uses of applets. Were I the security manager of Morgan Stanley, I would certainly not want traders downloading "kewl" applets and (possibly) causing Big Problems. So what else is new? Java as a language and as a platform-independent implementation is an achievement. As for Scheme and Smalltalk, both mentioned by Perry, I have both of these and of course neither has caught on a big way. I won't even speculate about the many reasons. And in some ways a more important comparison is to Perl and TCL, along with more obscure languages like Python and REXX. The welter of Net-oriented languages shows signs of being much-simplified by the wide adoption of Java. It will be interesting to watch the next several years of developments. -- 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."

1 0

Re: Security of PGP if Secret Key Available?
by Gary Howland 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Jun 3, 2:36, "Robert A. Hayden" wrote: > However, I got to wondering about the security of PGP assuming somebody > trying to read my PGPed stuff has my 1024-bit secret key. ie, if I have > it on my personal computer, and somebody gets my secret key, how much > less robust has PGP just become, and what are appropriate and reasonable > steps to take to protect this weakness? If the secret key is available then an attacker knows the length of p & q. Admittedly this will not usually help matters much, but I still feel that the lengths of p and q should be encrypted with the passphrase - perhaps in PGP3.0? (Derek?) Gary -- pub 1024/C001D00D 1996/01/22 Gary Howland <gary(a)systemics.com> Key fingerprint = 0C FB 60 61 4D 3B 24 7D 1C 89 1D BE 1F EE 09 06

4 4

Re: On the Hill: Child Porn "Morphing"
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:45 PM 6/4/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >"Morphing" seems to be the latest buzzword for putting childrens faces on >the bodies of adult models in sexually explicit poses and seems to have >attracted enough attention to warrant congressional attention. The ability to use the faces of famous political people (e.g. Bill&Hillery or Bob&Libby) in XXXX rated political satire probably has a wider market. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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

3 2

Re: Multiple Remailers at a site?
by loki＠infonex.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:40 PM 6/4/96, Scott Brickner wrote: >Bill Stewart writes: >>>I don't think multiple remailers at the same site help anything. >> >>Assume Alice, Bob, and Carol are on abc.com and Xenu, Yak, and Zut >>are on xyz.com. Remailing between Alice, Bob, and Carol doesn't >>make appear to make much difference, but it does reduce the damage >>if one of the remailer's keys is compromised. On the other hand, >>mail from Alice -> Xenu -> Bob -> Yak -> Carol -> Zut adds traffic >>to the system, and makes traffic analysis more difficult, >>even if the Bad Guys are watching site abc.com and have stolen >>Alice, Bob, and Carol's keys. > >Wait a minute. More traffic should make analysis easier, since traffic >analysis is mostly statistical work on the source and destination (not >necessarily "from" and "to"). A bigger sample makes more reliable >results. > >For traffic analysis, I don't know *who* sent the message (it was, >after all, anonymized), but I do know a site which transmitted it and >one which received it, the time it was transmitted, and maybe its >size. Multiply this times a whole bunch of messages, and I can infer >information about "common interests" between those sources and >destinations. > >The delays and mixing done by remailers make it harder by >disassociating the true sender from the true receiver. If a remailer >were to ignore this step, the analyst can deduce from the two data >points > > "message a, source A, destination RemailerX, time t, size s" > "message b, source RemailerX, destination B, time t+0.001s, size s" > >that there's some connection between A and B. The more such evidence, >the stronger the connection. If the remailer does a good job with >the delays and shuffling, then it becomes difficult for the analyst >to match message a with message b, leaving him with what he already >knew (that A and RemailerX have a common interest, as to B and RemailerX, >but the interests may be wholly unrelated). > >Multiple remailers on the same machine increases the resolution of >the address information, at best, improving the analysts ability to >make connections. The same traffic load going to a single remailer >at the site makes the analyst's job harder. > >>The other threat it helps with is that if XYZ.COM gets complaints >>about that evil user Zut, she can kick her off (Bad Zut!) >>and still leave Xenu and Yak alone; if the remailer service >>were provided by the machine owner herself she might be directly liable. > >Hmm. Nothing really stops the machine owner from creating a personal >anonymous account to run the remailer. When someone complains, shut it >down and create a new one. There isn't yet a law which requires that >the owner be able to identify the user. This affords the same >protection that multiple users does. The time correlation attack can be defeated by sending mail into the remailer network with a period roughly equal to the propagation time of a message through a chain. That way your messages correlate with absolutely all receipts of all messages. That contains no information. -Lance ---------------------------------------------------------- Lance Cottrell loki(a)obscura.com PGP 2.6 key available by finger or server. Mixmaster, the next generation remailer, is now available! http://www.obscura.com/~loki/Welcome.html or FTP to obscura.com "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come." --Nietzsche ----------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Fight-Censorship Dispatch #12: CDA deathwatch, copyright update
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fight-Censorship Dispatch #12 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The CDA deathwatch begins ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Declan McCullagh / declan(a)well.com / Redistribute freely ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- In this dispatch: CDA deathwatch begins, vultures start to circle Copyright update: sucks to continue, sucks to delay Fred Cherry, back in action! MIT's Seth Finkelstein weighs in on copyright Internet Caucus prepares pro-Net resolution June 4, 1996 WASHINGTON, DC -- The CDA deathwatch has begun and hungry scavengers are starting to close in on the ill-begotten law's moldering carcass. The Philly court yesterday attracted still more hovering media vultures by saying they'll announce when they're ready to release their decision. What a tease. This evening I called Chris Hansen, who's leading the ACLU's legal team challenging the CDA in Philadelphia's Federal court. He told me: The court will try to give as much advance notice as possible. This is unusual but not unheard of -- all along the court has treated this as a very important case. They had the court historian come in and take pictures the first day. And the clerk himself has been present, not his deputies. (In case anyone's interested, I'm still offering 3:1 odds in our favor in Philly, though all bets are off when we get to the Supreme Court.) In the last week, the ALA/CIEC and ACLU media operations shifted into overdrive, pumping out a flurry of press advisories telling mediaperns to be on the lookout -- that a decision is expected "any day now." That was the idea, at least. Conventional wisdom said that our three-judge panel in Philly would want to rule before the court in New York City that's currently hearing a weaker, parallel challenge to the CDA. After all, Federal judges are political beasts and it's a cinch that any of 'em would want to write an opinion in this landmark case. Final arguments in the NYC case were scheduled for yesterday. But at the hearing, the Manhattan court decided it had more questions for both sides and gave the government until June 7 to file responses and the plaintiff, Joe Shea, until June 13. That means that our court has until the end of next week to issue its decision -- and still come out first. And so the deathwatch groans onward... +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ COPYRIGHT UPDATE: SUCKS TO CONTINUE, SUCKS TO DELAY +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ I wrote in my May 30 dispatch that there's "a fighting chance that this braindead copyright bill will pass this year." Now I'm not as sure. The House subcommittee markup session that tentatively was scheduled for June 5 has been cancelled, and it won't take place before June 12 or 13. That's good and bad. The upside is that this ill-fated bill likely won't pass in any form this session -- but the mucky underside is that the courts will continue to rely on a Clinton administration white paper released last fall by copyright czar Bruce Lehman. Lehman, who heads the Patents and Trademark Office, hatched this boondoggle that slams online fair-use rights and slaps service providers with hefty fines if one of their users violates someone's copyright. A well-connected lawyer in DC sent me email on this earlier tonight: No copyright legislation is going to be passed this year. This comes from [Important Name deleted --DBM]. That means the White Paper will guide courts for at least the next very critical six months. The Scientology v. Lerma court has been looking [for] legislative direction, but they can't stall much longer. They will have to base their decision on the only thing they have, the White Paper. Somehow, I suspect the Church of Scientology won't mind that one bit. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ FRED CHERRY, BACK IN ACTION! +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ Fred Cherry, everyone's favorite net.loon and a truly redoubtable USENET flamer, took center stage briefly at yesterday's Shea v. Reno CDA hearing in New York City. The amateur lawyer succeeded in joining his lawsuit with Joe Shea's and has been merrily introducing excerpts from soc.motss "homonazi" flamewars into evidence. He maintains that to reply to flames, he must use "indecent" or "patently offensive" language, which could violate the CDA. Mark Mangan writes on the June 3 hearing: In his deep, raspy voice [Judge] Cabranes then called Fred Cherry, who had attended every day of the hearings in hopes of consolidating his case. The chief judge looked at a paper and pronounced Cherry's name again. Someone leaned over the seats and tapped Cherry. He awoke, arose, gathered his plastic bags and umbrella and, wearing his overcoat, approached the bench. He walked straight to the microphone and rested his belongings at his feet. Cherry started his hurried talk about how he "despised the ACLU" and what he was there to discuss "goes all the way back 30 years." I interviewed Cherry earlier today. Here's what he told me: ------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: HOW DID YOU FEEL AFTER THE HEARING? A: The judges were nice to me. I can't believe how nice they were. That's not what I'm used to when I see judges. Q: WHAT ABOUT YOUR REQUEST THAT THE CASES BE CONSOLIDATED? A: [Shea's attorney, Randall Boe] said he's worried that if I join, I'm so far behind that it'll slow him down. That they won't be able to get to the Supreme Court... I'm just going to tag along like a caboose hitched onto a train. [Shea and his attorney] don't want me. They filed a brief, about two pages, saying they didn't want me. Q: WHAT DID YOU TELL THE JUDGES YESTERDAY? A: I came up with something [posted] by Rod Swift that Jesus had a large penis. Everybody [in the courtroom] was going crazy. Everyone was laughing. Q: WILL YOU INTRODUCE THOSE POSTS INTO EVIDENCE? A: They're going to give me more time. There's going to be an order -- it hasn't come down yet. They'll issue an order allowing me to present more exhibits. ------------------------------------------------------------------- I asked Cherry for the penis-posts he read aloud, but he still hasn't sent 'em to me. I was able to track down some seemingly representative ones that I archived at EFF's web site in April: Your ass is so blocked up that you do need some therapeutic relief for your constipation -- a condition which has backlogged all the shit right back up into your head, Fred. nobody has suggested that fred cherry should be thrown in jail, sued for libel, or even so much as fined. i have suggested the wisdom of packing his asshole with shards of broken glass, but i wasn't serious. i wasnt _that_ serious anyway. Whatever you think of Cherry's antics, you gotta grant him one thing: not many people have the balls to demand that a Federal court uphold their right to flame. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ MIT'S SETH FINKELSTEIN WEIGHS IN ON COPYRIGHT +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ By Seth Finkelstein (sethf(a)mit.edu) The fight over the future of copyright law is raging over two competing concepts: information should be for the public good vs. info is "private property." Previously, information has been tightly linked to a physical object -- a book, a record, a tape. Now, with electronic communication, the full implications of "copyright" -- where using your printscreen key may be illegal if not explicitly allowed by license -- are becoming clear. Since this "property" is so abstract, it's frightening to contemplate the regulation needed to control the network to ensure no unauthorized information gets distributed. In the censorship battles, there's at least *some* material which is safe. Not so in the copyright wars, where every message may be required to carry "identification papers," to establish that it's not fugitive property that has escaped from its rightful "owner." (And what does this do to anonymity online?) Unlike many, I don't believe any particular outcome is inevitable. It's a question of what sort of future world emerges from the *political* process. It can be either an electronic commons, shared by all, or a series of tollbooths on every public online street. +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ INTERNET CAUCUS PREPARES PRO-INTERNET RESOLUTION +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ The congressional Internet Caucus is about to introduce a non-binding resolution promising to do good by the Net: --------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that -- (1) Congress should educate itself about the Internet and use the technology in personal, committee, and leadership offices; (2) Congress should work in a bipartisan and bicameral fashion to facilitate the growth and advancement of the Internet; (3) Congress should maximize the openness of and participation in government by the people via the Internet so that our constituents can have more information from and more access to their elected representatives; (4) Congress should promote commerce and free flow of information on the Internet; (5) Congress should advance the United States' world leadership in the digital world by avoiding the passage of laws that stifle innovation and increase regulation of the Internet; and (6) Congress should work with the Internet community to receive its input on the issues affecting the Internet that come before Congress. --------------------------------------------------------------------- In today's Campaign Dispatch column on HotWired, Brock Meeks writes: The caucus is now 47 members strong, double its original membership. But the fight for Net survival -- hell, for simple respect -- is far from over. Neither a second-term Clinton nor a Dole presidency gives us much reason for hope. We'll be in the trenches for several years to come; it's time to get our hands dirty. More hot air from Congress? Sure. But it's a sea change compared to where the Net community was a year ago, around the time that TIME magazine's infamous Cyberporn cover appeared, Marty Rimm published his fraudulent smut-study, and Sen. Chuck Grassley held the "first-ever" cybersmut hearing in July... Stay tuned for more reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today's unsubstantiated rumor: Y'all remember Jason "The Weasel" Baron, the DoJ's lumbering, cyberchallenged lawyer? Word from an attorney friend of mine says that Baron is predicting the DoJ will *lose* on the CDA, three-zip. Want to subscribe to the announcement-only fight-censorship mailing list for future Fight-Censorship Dispatches and related updates? Just send "subscribe fight-censorship-announce" in the body of a message addressed to: majordomo(a)vorlon.mit.edu Mentioned in this CDA update: Mark Mangan's Shea v. Reno June 3 update: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2691 EFF's archive on the Fred Cherry v. Reno case: http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Fred_Cherry_v_DoJ/ EFF's archive on the Joe Shea v. Reno case: http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Am_Reporter_v_DoJ/ ACLU predicts decision soon: http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/dl?num=2673 U.S. Congressional Internet Caucus: http://www.house.gov/white/internet_caucus/netcauc.html Creative Incentive Coalition on copyright: http://www.cic.org/ Digital Future Coalition on copyright: http://www.ari.net/dfc/ Brock Meeks on online copyright: http://www.hotwired.com/muckraker/96/20/index3a.html Brock Meeks on Internet Caucus, non-binding resolution: http://www.hotwired.com/netizen/96/23/index1a.html Ron Newman's web page on the Church of Scientology: http://www.cybercom.net/~rnewman/scientology/ 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/> This and previous Fight-Censorship Dispatches are archived at: <http://fight-censorship.dementia.org/top/> Other relevant web sites: <http://www.epic.org/> <http://www.eff.org/> <http://www.aclu.org/> <http://www.cdt.org/> <http://www.ala.org/> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Electronic Signature Act Of 1996
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I think more apropos to the discussion of electronic signatures is UCC 1-201(39), "'Signed' includes any symbol executed or adopted by a party with present intention to authenticate a writing." Comment 39 to 1-201 indicates "[a]uthentication may be printed, stamped or written; it may be by initials or by thumbprint. It may be on any part of the document and in appropriate cases may be found in a billhead or letterhead. No catalog of possible authentications can be complete and the court must use common sense and commercial experience in passing upon these matters. The question always is whether the symbol was executed or adopted by the party with present intention to authenticate the writing." And comment 2 to 3-401 (re negotiable instruments) indicates that a signature may be "handwritten, typed, printed or made in any other manner." So I don't see why that wouldn't include a PGP signature, a traditional ".signature" block, or the typed "/s/ Greg Broiles" used in some circumstances. (Of course, the UCC doesn't apply to every transaction, nor is it adopted in identical form in every state, blah blah blah.) But it's always nice if the legislature is willing to say "This is the right way to create an electronic signature" because then we don't have to wonder. (However, a signature and a contract are not the same thing - and you don't need to have a contract to have an enforceable obligation. A nonrepudiable document still isn't a self-executing one.) -- Greg Broiles |"Post-rotational nystagmus was the subject of gbroiles(a)netbox.com |an in-court demonstration by the People http://www.io.com/~gbroiles |wherein Sgt Page was spun around by Sgt |Studdard." People v. Quinn 580 NYS2d 818,825.

3 2