- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Violation or Protection? [OLYMPICS]
by David Rosoff 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- I don't have any crypto references, but due to the Libertarian overtones on this list I believe it is on-topic enough. On the local news I saw footage of a couple schmoozing in the Olympic (Centennial?) Park after its reopening. The voice-over said that all bags are being searched, and the couple said that rather than be alarmed or nervous, they "appreciated" it. I'm not quite sure what to think about this. I don't have enough experience to form a well thought-out opinion. I'd like to hear some of everyone's thoughts on this: Is this bag-searching a violation, (which was my immediate reaction) or is it not, because you have to already be going into the controlled area to get searched? Thanks for your help. =============================================================================== David Rosoff (nihongo ga sukoshi dekiru) ---------------> drosoff(a)arc.unm.edu PGP public key 0xD37692F9 -----> finger drosoff(a)acoma.arc.unm.edu or keyservers 0xD37692F9 Key fingerprint = 25 7D AA 01 85 41 43 89 50 5A 33 76 F1 F1 99 67 Do you know who's reading your email? ---> http://www.arc.unm.edu/~drosoff/pgp/ Is it a forgery? --- I have PGP signed all email and news posts since May 1996. =============================================================================== "Relax. It's not a real alarm. They can't crack _Pentagon_ codes. Can they?" :p -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMf7oqBguzHDTdpL5AQEtkQP8DjGWrL2n4V0C+Uz+S2adprh3QlXpEBhj xQEPH70mTIYT/iNSvuPQqWtmedlssa0f2A+ziAGPV/DFGTQnACflgcSy3okZVq64 QeuAYx3sDk230FI5vOKXwMPZt3cGwaaVpLwZhc1MkjuSgZwkE9T39JlS1worPGNQ iGkZ8Bp2ZlY= =FEjP -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

re:WaPo on Crypto-Genie Terrorism
by Duncan Frissell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 08:17 AM 7/31/96 -0800, Vinnie Moscaritolo wrote: >"The people of Burgdorf went to parades and speeches--some because they >genuinely believed in their leaders; others, because not to go would call >attention to themselves. Most practiced the silence they were familiar >with, a silence nurtured by fear and complicity that would grow beyond >anything they could imagine, mushrooming into the decades after the war >which, some began to fear, was about to happen. The Nets sure haven't been silent, however. Tyranny is tougher these days. DCF

1 0

Re: Secure drive under Win95... a better way.
by Geoffrey C. Grabow 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

After much fiddling, I've found (IMHO) a "good" way of using secure drive 1.4a under Win95. After doing the partitioning and encrypting, put the following in your AUTOEXEC.BAT file... cd\utils\secdr14a sectsr login D: /S @choice /T:N,1 @if errorlevel 2 goto ContinueLoad :EnterPP login D: @if errorlevel 1 goto Again @if errorlevel 0 goto ContinueLoad :Again @choice Try again? @if errorlevel 2 goto ContinueLoad @goto EnterPP :ContinueLoad cd\ cls abviously you have to replace the D: with your drive letter, and the directory at the top with your SECDR14a dir. Then, in Win95 you have to turn off 32 bit disk access. To do this without losing all the speed of virtual memory, do the following... right-click on My Computer click on Properties, Performance, File System, Troubleshooting and check the box labeled: Disable all 32 bit protect-mode disk drivers. Re-boot. If you have a CD-ROM drive, you will have to load the DOS drivers in order to be able to access it. Granted, this is just a kludge until Secure Drive is re-designed for Win95, but I've tried a dozen different combinations, and this gives you all the SecDrv security under Win95 (except being able to lock/unlock after Win95 starts) and sacrafices the least amount of system performance. Enjoy! G.C.G. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Geoffrey C. Grabow | Great people talk about ideas. | | Oyster Bay, New York | Average people talk about things. | | gcg(a)pb.net | Small people talk about people. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | PGP 2.6.2 public key available at www.pb.net/~wizard | |----------------------------------------------------------------------| | That which does not kill us, makes us stranger. - Trevor Goodchild | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1 0

Re: "An who shall guard the guardians?"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:46 AM 8/1/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > >The Latin maxim "And who shall guard the guardians?" has some relevance to >the headlong rush into converting the U.S. into even more of a security >state than it is now. > >The investigation in Atlanta is now focussing on a rent-a-cop who may have >planted the pipe bomb and then "discovered" it. Check the usual Web news >sources for more details. Whether he is the bomber or not is not the point, >which is, "who watches the cops?" The timing of the revelation of the investigation's interest in Jewell, the rent-a-cop, is highly suspicious. We have now learned that (contrary to previous reports that the bomb exploded 18 minutes after the warning was given by telephone), in fact the 911 people wasted about 10 minutes trying to figure out the address of the park. Even though this story did indeed get reported by the media, a little, "as if on cue" the interest in Jewell was leaked. It gives the media something to talk about other than the known official screwup. A coincidence? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Let's Say "No!" to Single, World Versions of Software
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 7:51 PM 7/31/96, Mark M. wrote: >On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Tom Weinstein wrote: > >> We won't do this. Our domestic version will always contain the >> strongest crypto we can provide. > >Then what is the concern about anonymous arms-traffickers uploading the strong >crypto version to foreign FTP sites? I recall you saying that the State >Department might revoke Netscape's "permission" to provide a domestic version >if it was exported. I believe the issue involves Netscape's _method of distribution_, that is, its placement of Navigator on a publically-accessible site with various "checks" of who is trying to download it. This is something the State Department could theoretically get involved with, due to the ITARs and the way they are worded. Actually approving of disapproving a piece of software for sale to U.S. citizens is not currently possible. (Though this is worrisome, speculatively. Various other weapons, such as nukes and CBW, are in fact prohibited for sale to private citizens unless approved. And sales of various guns are limited. So, if "crypto is a munition," the same could perhaps apply. This runs into the "crypto as speech" issue, of course.) --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: Violation or Protection? [OLYMPICS]
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From: tcmay(a)got.net > >If the Centennial Park is a public place, not a private one, as I believe >to be the case, then it seems to me a person is within his rights to turn >down the offer to be inspected, frisked, interrogated, etc. ........................................................ But if the park was a private one, would it make any difference? Between the "right" of being left alone, and the "legitimate needs" of law enforcers to frisk suspicious looking characters - whether in public or in private places - it seems rather difficult to draw that dividing line between allowance and forbearance. I mean, either it is, or it isn't, a "right". When could it really be okay to violate that definition. How are the law enforcers to do their job if they can't intrude into your shopping bag, when it's a critical National Emergency. This is what Denning is always referring to. .. Blanc > >

1 0

Re: ANNOUNCE: 2nd trip to National Cryptologic Museum (fwd)
by root 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Is it a bar where you can smoke ?? ( the legal stuff ) >>>>> Forwarded message from tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) At 5:15 PM 7/31/96, Zorak Ramone wrote: > Following the lecture, we will be going over to Henckles (10 minutes >from the museum), a local resturaunt reported to be a favorite hangout for >NSA employees. Henckles has amazing sandwiches as well as good beer on tap. Jeez, first they tap our phones, and now they're tapping our beer! --Klaus << End forwarded message Charles E. Sparks In God We Trust, All Others we Encrypt Public Key at: http://www.clark.net/pub/charley/pc_1.htm

1 0

Re: Photo IDs (Re: A Libertine Question)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 8:09 PM 7/31/96, William Knowles wrote: > >What about one of those camouflage passports from Britsh Honduras >that they sell in the back of the Robb Report for $300? > >I personally doubt that your basic $4.75 an hour airport security >guard knows about that. All of the I.D. checks I have received have been at the ticket counter, to receive my boarding pass. The airport security guards have never asked me for any form of I.D., picture or otherwise. (As has been commented upon by many analysts, it's likely that the airline companies are enforcing the picture I.D. rule so as to stop the practice of people buying discount tickets and then selling them to others. Specifically, many corporations buy tickets in advance of knowing who the actual business traveller will be. The airlines are causing many who arrive at the ticket counter to "upgrade" to a full-fare ticket under their real name.) The "security" implications are a joke. More pablum fed to the gullible. --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."

2 1

Photo IDs (Re: A Libertine Question)
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 3:12 PM 7/31/96, Duncan Frissell wrote: >was allegedly requiring *two* pieces of ID for flights. If they are talking >about two pieces of photo -- government-issued ID, I wonder where the 80% of >Americans without a Passport (x the 90% of Americans who are not government >employees) get the second piece of ID. [Is it a violation of something if >you Heil Hitler od Sieg Heil the airline clerk when they ask to see your ID. >It's not a threat, it's an expression of honor.] Yeah, this "two photo IDs" is strange, given that: a. many ordinary people have only one form of photo I.D., namely, their driver's license (and many don't even have that) b. terrorists and other such persons are _very_ likely to have multiple forms of I.D., though of course not in their "true name." Hence, the policy looks ineffectual and just a sop to public relations. And just what is a "true name" for the purposes of this law, anyway? Birth name? And what is that? What about people who marry, change names, etc.? Given that there is no "standard" for photo I.D.s, will my Official Cypherpunks Card count? I can easily make my own photo I.D.s, or even order "fake I.D.s" from various mail-order outlets advertising in the Usual Places. If I show up at the airline with two photo I.D.s, one showing me to be "Security Officer Mickey Mouse" and the other showing me to be "Mickey Mouse, Internal Security Agency," will I be violating any laws? --Mickey Mouse (I just changed my name--if you don't like it, FAA, fuck off)

2 1

Re: Photo IDs (Re: A Libertine Question)
by Chris Adams 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On 31 Jul 96 14:27:54 -0800, tcmay(a)got.net wrote: >>was allegedly requiring *two* pieces of ID for flights. If they are talking >>about two pieces of photo -- government-issued ID, I wonder where the 80% of > >Yeah, this "two photo IDs" is strange, given that: >a. many ordinary people have only one form of photo I.D., namely, their >driver's license (and many don't even have that) >b. terrorists and other such persons are _very_ likely to have multiple >forms of I.D., though of course not in their "true name." > >Hence, the policy looks ineffectual and just a sop to public relations. And who really thought a response just days later would be anything else? >And just what is a "true name" for the purposes of this law, anyway? Birth >name? And what is that? What about people who marry, change names, etc.? >Given that there is no "standard" for photo I.D.s, will my Official >Cypherpunks Card count? Now *that* might be another way of generating Cypherpunks revenue! (1 card per FPGA paid for the DES cracker... Or maybe every $15 toward the CPLDF or PRZ) # Chris Adams <adamsc(a)io-online.com> - Webpages for sale! Se habla JavaScript! # Automatically receive my resume or PGPKEY by sending email with a subject # of 'send PGPKEY' or 'send resume'. Capitalization counts so be careful! # Web site: http://www.io-online.com/adamsc/adamsc.htm

1 0