- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

retailer
by Brett Smith 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

please send info

1 0

Re: cipherpunk mail at Netcom.com
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:06 PM 2/4/96 -0800, Norman Hardy wrote: >The list of addressees is made from the "From" fields that include >"netcom.com" in CP mail that appeared on the CP list Tuesday and Wednesday >last week. I have received no CP mail since then. Have you? I have only received one message. Since all of the header dates are from last Tuesday, it may not count. BTW - I received it sometime between Saturday morning and Sunday night. (I was out of town over the weekend.): >Return-Path: <owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com> >Received: from toad.com by mail2 (8.6.12/Netcom) > id SAA08759; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 18:10:42 -0800 >Received: by toad.com id AA04747; Tue, 30 Jan 96 12:50:10 PST >Received: from callandor.cybercash.com by toad.com id AA04741; Tue, 30 Jan 96 >12:50:00 PST >Received: by callandor.cybercash.com; id PAA02048; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:54:55 >-0500 >Received: from cybercash.com(204.254.34.52) by callandor.cybercash.com via >smap (g3.0.3) > id xma002021; Tue, 30 Jan 96 15:54:28 -0500 >Received: from [204.254.34.231] by cybercash.com.cybercash.com (4.1/SMI-4.1) > id AA04051; Tue, 30 Jan 96 15:47:06 EST >Message-Id: <v02120d0ead3421ea1cee(a)[204.254.34.231]> >Mime-Version: 1.0 >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 15:51:24 -0400 >To: tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) >From: cme(a)cybercash.com (Carl Ellison) >Subject: Re: Denning's misleading statements >Cc: Cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Sender: owner-cypherpunks(a)toad.com >Precedence: bulk > >At 20:49 1/27/96, Timothy C. May wrote: >>I've never met Dorothy Denning, so I hesitate to characterize her as a >>villainess. But certainly she's the only noted cryptographer I know of >>who's gone so far out on a limb to defend a position the vast majority of >>computer scientists, civil libertarians, and cryptographers scoff at. > >I've met some others -- most noteably Silvio Micali [but he has a financial >interest in that position]. However, DERD is the only one I've met >who is all the way over on Freeh's side. > > - Carl > > >+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ >| Carl M. Ellison cme(a)acm.org http://www.clark.net/pub/cme | >| PGP: E0414C79B5AF36750217BC1A57386478 & 61E2DE7FCB9D7984E9C8048BA63221A2 | >| "Officer, officer, arrest that man! He's whistling a dirty song." | >+----------------------------------------------------------- Jean Ellison -+ > > > Bill ----------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0

Question of Congressional Lawmaking Power (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: >From owner-ctlug(a)ssz.com Mon Feb 5 01:59:09 1996 From: Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> Message-Id: <199602050759.BAA10442(a)einstein.ssz.com> Subject: Question of Congressional Lawmaking Power To: ctlug(a)ssz.com (CT-LUG Mailing List) Date: Mon, 5 Feb 1996 01:59:02 -0600 (CST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Content-Length: 7702 Sender: owner-ctlug(a)ssz.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ctlug(a)ssz.com Hi all, To those with no interest I apologize. To those who were at the meeting this evening discussing the limitations of Congress and the purported 'elastic clause', this is what I found: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE I. [Powers of Congress.] Section 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and common Coin of the United States; To establish Post Offices and post Roads; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the authority of training and Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; -- And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe that the section that was refered to is the last sentence regarding the making of all laws necessary for carrying out the powers detailed here and elsewhere in the Constitution. This article clearly states that it is not an open ended empowerment. It covers only those items specificaly covered in the body of the Constitution. At the time it was written it was clear that the founding fathers did not want a federal government which was not hampered or constrained in its ability to pass laws and carry out duties. If a court or body makes the assertion that this article empowers Congress to make any law then they are sadly misinformed and possibly intentionaly misrepresenting the intent of the founding fathers and the limitations on Congress placed there by them. This article no more authorized (for example) the creation of the DEA, FDA, or EPA than it authorizes them to take property without just compensation. If this was taught you either through a textbook or a public school then feel cheated and lied to, you were (possibly with premeditation). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- And in regards to the limitation of federal lawmaking and questions of jurisdiction covered in the 10 amendments... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARTICLE IX. The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ARTICLE X. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The intent is clear. If there is a question of jurisdiction then it will ALWAYS fall to the states or the people, and NEVER to the federal government. In short, the federal government and the Supreme Court are not and were never intended to be the last word on anything in this country. The 10th clearly leaves that to the states and the people. Neither of these Amendments have been tested or used in a court in this country for 200 years. This is a telling tale. The courts and legislative bodies (as well as any reasonable person) will see immediately that the federal government has usurped powers and duties not theirs to execute short of a constitutional amendment. This not only includes laws allowing the seizing of private property for public use without just compensation (irrespective of the source of that private property) but drug laws, food regulation laws, environmental laws, etc. The last time Congress acted in a constitutional manner regarding this was the amendments dealing with prohibition and its repeal. Since that time Congress and the courts have taken powers reserved for the states and the people and acted upon them without authorization. In short the Congress of the US has acted in a manner assuming exemption from constitutional limitations since the late 20's. What this country needs is a legal test of both the 9th and 10th amendments. Questions regarding Internet and free speech are immediately resolved as non-issues on the federal level. It also makes jurisdictional extensions such as Tennessee arresting and prosecuting a person in California for downloading files (whatever they might contain) a non sequitar unless money is exchanged (in which case Congress may tax it, not prohibit it). It also clearly prohibits outside entities such as Germany from prosecuting anyone in the US for their actions on the Internet. If Germany wishes to constrain the content of Internet that is fine. It is between Germany and its people. Another example is gun ownership. It is not a federal issue. It is a state issue and should be resolved on a state by state level. Congress has no more authority vested by the Constitution to limit a persons ownership of a water pistol or a atom bomb, and this is the way it should be. The issue is one of a state level unless Congress wishes to propose a constitutional amendment changing or revoking the 2nd. (again as it should be). I personaly refuse to support any political party which does not support and intend on testing both of these amendments. At this time there is not one political party (even the Libertarian) who will touch this issue. I strongly suggest that you demand support for these two amendments from any legislator that you might support. Jim Choate ravage(a)ssz.com

1 0

China Censors
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The NY Times today reports on China's new rules for censoring the Internet. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/yr/mo/day/front/china-censor.html

1 0

Boston Globe and Nazism
by bob bruen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I thought this clip would be of interest. Just in case you were not sure which directionship censorship on the net was heading. Anyone remember Joe McCarthy? bob ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Boston Sunday Globe page 74, February 4, 1996. Business Review section, Highlights of the week: Jan.28-Feb.3. Goosestepping in cyberspace The politics of the Internet make strange bedfellows. When the German government moved to bar German Internet users from downloading material on a neo-Nazi net site, the free-speech-in-cyberspace crowd reacted by downloading the stuff and posting it all over the net. Joseph Goebels would be proud.

1 0

verification of randomness
by andreas＠artcom.de 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hi... I've built a random number generator based on the noise of a Zener diode. Now I'd like to verify it's correct operation. I'd be very grateful if someone could point me to existing software for randomness tests or additional tests not mentioned in Knuth. I'll make the design of the generator available as soon as I've verified it's operation. Andreas -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAgUBMRVyMUyjTSyISdw9AQHUSQP/UK3ubued8U3iB4FDO5WAsiEV+F2/100O 0w42NSZbry5+07u+l9eJN/ogpECZ9yIltWM7slkKZS0q0TGQ4zCucHoDPKhubMHs gQqjkmgXTs0drqRn+BYPoQFYPyiYLeBr67BRqsQFyp7neuMC5NN10NpL9y4bcAS2 8NBB7yFh9d0= =RD04 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: [noise] Re: Charter of PDX Cpunk meetings
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- At 07:18 AM 2/4/96 -0800, bernardo(a)alpha.c2.org wrote: >jim bell wrote: > >>> I think an explanation for this is due. Jim is going to move his complaints >>> here instead of dealing with them with me no matter what I do... >> >> Alan Olsen is correct, here. > >This is childish and pointless. Please shut up or take it to email. Odd that you would say this, even more odd that you would post it to the Cypherpunks list. The only reason I am posting this is that you appear to be taking a remarkably similar position to Alan Olsen. > >> But he (the anonymous poster): >> 1. FLamed me on this national list, similarly to the way Alan Olsen later did. > >FWIW, this is an _international_ list with a lot of people who are >just not interested in your petty bickering. If you want to argue >about this, please do it in private. Then why didn't you send me the email directly, and NOT copy the list. Somehow, it appears you have a double standard. The only reason I'm responding to you now, ON CYPHERPUNKS, is that you appear to be hypocritically asking me to "keep it off the list" at the same time to failed to do the same yourself. Sounds like a double-standard. Your behavior is remarkably remeniscent of Alan Olsen himself. > If Alan posts responses to the >list, that's his problem. You don't _have_ to answer in public. It's been pointed out to me that because Alan flamed me in public, anonymously, on Cypherpunks, I am entitled to have it known what he did. >> 2. Failed to be willing to sustain the debate in a more appropriate list, >> even under a stable nym. > >You have something against anonymity? In this case, perhaps this list >is not the best place to be. I think you're deliberately pretending to misunderstand. I have nothing against anonymity. While a "newbie," I was under the impression that the term "stable nym" (my usage) refers to an anonymous alias that is untraceable. In fact, it was _I_ who suggested that this anonymous flamer (now apparently self-admittedly identified as Alan Olsen himself) adopt a stable nym and debate me on some other area more appropriate for the subject. While I do feel there is CP relevance to the digital cash/good encryption/network applications of "Assassination Politics," I didn't want to force this on what I would like to think of as a "not particularly political" list. (Recent topics have battered the distinction, I realize. I don't want to make it "worse," however.) >> that I had been flamed by that anonymous poster. The fact that he was >> anonymous says it all. The fact that he has not returned says it all. The > >The fact that he was anonymous says nothing whatsoever. So what if >you received some email agreeing that you'd been flamed? The point is, some people seem to agree that what this anonymous flamer did was against "nettiquette," or at least against CP typical behavior. Had he made his criticisms with a stable nym and been willing to sustain a serious debate (possibly on another area) that would have signalled that he was believeable and serious. He was not, however. >> the fact that I am relatively new here. I have no intention of inflicting >> an unwelcome discussion of "Assassination Politics" on the list, and > >Actually, and Perry may disagree here, but I'd have no objection to a >discussion of "Assassination Politics", or any other nutty political >theories, as long as we can stick to reasonably mature discussion and >not flames and petty ego boosting. "..other nutty political theories"? Harummmph! Well, I guess you got your "not so subtle" dig in, there. I'd like to see a bit more widespread approval of such a discussion before actively starting it, anyway, especially by some of the "old-timers" here. (Sadly, as I newbie, I don't really even know who the "old timers" are!) But recently, there's been too much traffic anyway! >> suffered any longterm loss of reputation of his own. I, on the other hand, >> use my REAL NAME. > >Whoopie! A True Name! Big deal. I care not one jot whether or not >you use your REAL NAME. I have no way of knowing if it is, in fact, >your real name. Should it make a difference? Not necessarily. As I pointed out before, I'm happy to debate a stable nym (a term I learned only a few weeks ago, BTW). But completely anonymous flames from a person who cuts and runs does not improve the S/N ratio of this or any other list. >No one is going to "suffer any longterm loss of reputation" by >disagreeing with you, or anyone else, whether or not they use a nym >(or anonymity). I didn't want anybody to even be able to use the excuse of "I feared for my life debating with that vile purveyor of that wacky idea, 'Assassination Politics.' " I invited him to use a stable nym. >> Only a fool would have taken an anonymous flamer seriously under those >> circumstances. > >An anonymous post is no less valid for being anonymous. You may be surprised that I absolutely agree. However, the post was not merely "anonymous" but flaming, and the poster didn't stick around. In other words, its anonymity didn't do it in, the motivation of the poster did, however. > The only >advantage of a stable nym, whether or not it's a True Name, is the >ability to gain (or lose) reputation through the content of its >posts. Perhaps a nym with some reputation is taken more seriously >than an anonymous poster, but so is an unknown nym. Neither you nor >Alan has any reputation to speak of (to me, at least), so an anonymous >post has no less. But on the other hand, a flaming "debate" on CP doesn't help any of YOU guys, the other readers of CP. >>> Jim ignored that request and I removed him from the list. >> >> Read: "Alan Olsen exercised his authority in his own personal fiefdom, the >> "PDX Cypherpunks list." > >Are you saying he doesn't have that right? If it's his list, he can >do whatever the hell he likes with it. No, I merely translated "Olsen-speak" into language most of the rest of us could understand. He had that right. On the other hand, the exercise of this right displays Olsen's behavior for all to see. I wanted there to be no doubt on the national list what Alan Olsen was doing. >> On the contrary, I have no interest in dealing with this sleazy character in >> email. He was the one who chose a national list to do his flaming and >> baiting, and I think he deserves full "credit." > >In other words, you are not interested in resolving any problem you >have with Alan, you just to make a lot of noise in public in an >attempt to "embarrass" him. Go play on some other list where this >kind of thing is appreciated. > >>> The following is the last I will say publically on the matter. >> >> You're going to take your bat and ball and "go thwait home!" You hear your >> mommy calling, Alan. > >This list periodically devolves into this childishness. I'm glad Alan >is not going to say any more. I am, too. > I award Alan 20 Reputation Points for >being mature enough to walk away (delayed long enough to see whether >he does) As long as the record reflects his misbehavior, I am satisfied as well. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMRVpWfqHVDBboB2dAQEzVgQAgIjr4L3tYYgoIAe+H25y8b/Z+mIRq+xz HaTNntpFyBmIO3hGFLYNW90QurXd0sFHgRQJ0ohN103buI1j1NkqX1O7seKv3FaG 0png19/IkbrssZ7QwXUJU5tVuRY9h6eGi7pt2Rdj/OpkL3neyqKmYu3UmmOHZtMa j2R/pWwdCwE= =WXd4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Randomness testing
by Clifford Heath 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

We have been asked by a customer if we have any tests that demonstrate the randomness of the SSLeay random number generator (augmented by some sound-card random number seeding that we wrote). I'd like to find some standard implementation for testing randomness, but Schneier offers no help (other than a reference to Knuth Vol 2), and I don't know where else to turn. I realise that cryptographic randomness requires unpredictability, and this quality depends upon closed-world assumptions about unknown individuals' predictive powers, but we have to live with that. -- Clifford Heath http://www.osa.com.au/~cjh Open Software Associates Limited mailto:cjh@osa.com.au 29 Ringwood Street / PO Box 4414 Phone +613 9871 1694 Ringwood VIC 3134 AUSTRALIA Fax +613 9871 1711 ------------------------------------------------------------ Deploy Applications across the net, see http://www.osa.com

6 7

Fair Credit Reporting Act and Privacy Act
by Frank Willoughby 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FWIW, while the goal of the cypherpunks in helping to promote secure private communications by making encryption publicly available on a worldwide scale, definitely helps socially backward countries which have dictators (communist or otherwise), it misses its mark somewhat in the USA. Personally, I think that in the USA, this is treating the symptom, but not the disease. Probably the easiest way of ensuring that personal information isn't wantonly distributed by credit agencies or (anyone else) is to update our Privacy Act - which is ridiculously out-of-date and badly in need of being re-written. It is also hampered by its apparent lack of teeth. My personal recommendation would be a law like Germany's BDSG. The BDSG (BundesDatenSchutzGesetz which translates to: Federal Information/Data Protection Law (aka Privacy Act). Even better would be a law like the one in Austria (which I understand has the world's strictest privacy act. (Hooray for the Austrians). 8^) If the Privacy Act were rewritten to be as strict as the BDSG, businesses would have a (mandatory) legal requirement to: o Ensure that personal data is stored properly (by encrypting it, etc) o Ensure that personal data is not distributed o Ensure that databases are *not* being maintained which describe the characteristics of individuals (buying habits, income, property ownership, etc) wantonly propagated by marketing (direct mail, telemarketing, etc) companies. (Note that credit bureaus still have a function, but they would be (forced to be) responsible for ensuring that compliance with the Privacy Act would be maintained. This could result in better safeguards being implemented by the credit bureaus.) resulting in the following by-products: o the promotion of the use & implementation of encryption - including the possibility of ITAR being reduced or eliminated for the export of encryption products o reduced propagation of personal information o reduced amount of junk mail that winds its way to our mailboxes each day 8^) o reduced amounts of tele-marketing 8^) If pressure were brought to bear on the law-makers to rewrite the Privacy Act to give it qualities like the BDSG, etc, then this would significantly help achieve the cypherpunks' goal of promoting secure private communications. (I realize this isn't the only goal of the c'punks, but its a start). As the changes would be made within "the system" as opposed to outside of it, there would be virtually no hassle from the government. IOW, changing the Privacy Act will probably solve a variety of problems while achieving the c'punks goal of secure personal communications. Food for thought. Best Regards, Frank <standard disclaimer> The opinions expressed above are of the author and may not necessarily be representative of Fortified Networks Inc. Fortified Networks Inc. - Management & Information Security Consulting Phone: (317) 573-0800 - http://www.fortified.com/fortified Home of the Free Internet Firewall Evaluation Checklist

1 0

Re: U.S. presidential debate: URLs, V-Chip, huge databases
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Except for one sentence that will go down in Net.history -- Bob Dole >ended the 90-minute session with what he framed as an appeal to >younger voters: "If you really want to get involved, tap into my home >page at www.dolekemp96.org. Thank you." It's an amazing web site. The first thing that it wants you to do is fill out a Custom Design Form Information on the following form will allow us to customize your personal Dole for President web site. Imagine - a web site for a candidate so spineless he wants to tell you what _you_ believe in, not what he believes in! Dole is one of the few Republicans out there who make Clinton look like he's got principles. Bush would always sneer while he was lying to the public, but at least the man _was_ up to something. Something evil, but _something_. And when Nixon lied to you, it was ok to laugh. (Well, in most circles. And even his die-hard supporters generally understood....) >Ain't it hip to be a netizen? > .... Clinton ... V-Chip ... Dole ... nationalized ID card database >Dole called the use of illegal drugs a heinous crime, accusing Clinton >of being a "liberal." Bwah-hah-hah! <insert much cynical laughter here> Liberal. Yeah, right. I've known liberals, and he's not one. Even the hacked Dole/Kemp web page had the right-wing arrow pointing to the ClintonGore page, and the left-wing arrow pointing to the "You can't go back again" page :-) >Then, responding to a get-tough-on-guns >challenge from his opponent, Dole suggested a database system that >would check your identity and background before allowing you to buy a >gun: "You put your card in there and if it says 'tilt' you get >nothing. No guns. Zippo." Card? What card? Thank you very much! >These are hardly the words of someone who gives a rat's ass about privacy. Declan McCullagh, you have been fined two credits for violation of the verbal morality law. >What's worse, elephantine government databases or V-chip >style censorship? All I know is that neither of 'em has my vote. Isn't it nice to have options! If I weren't voting Libertarian, there's Perot and Ralph Nader (both of whom are _interesting_ statists), or Pat Paulsen (I don't care that he lost the primary), or Barry Goldwater (:-). Or there's Hugh Romney (aka Wavy Gravy, who runs the Nobody for President campaign), or Frank Zappa (who'd make a better president, dead, than most of the major candidates would alive.) Or you can take a decentralist approach - vote for someone you trust. Yourself. Your spouse. One of your neighbors. Your mom. Just spell their name right. (I've met Harry Browne, but he's always been in public-figure mode. I guess he'll do. Jo Jorgensen, the VP candidate, is actually a real person, as is Nancy Lord, previous VP candidate.) # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, +1-415-442-2215 stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # You can get PGP outside the US at ftp.ox.ac.uk Imagine if three million people voted for somebody they _knew_, and the politicians had to count them all.

1 0