- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: FCPUNX:PGP Key Escrow and Congress
by goddesshera＠juno.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Wed, Oct 15, 1997 at 02:10:54PM -0400, Eli Brandt wrote: > Bruce Schneier wrote: > > From: "Barbara Simons" <simons(a)VNET.IBM.COM> > > > > Some of these are old arguments that we've been hearing for a while, > > but some are newer. In particular, points 4 and 6 are difficult to > > refute without getting into some technical details. Both points also > > undercut the argument that a key recovery infrastructure potentially > > weakens security. After all, the NSA thinks it's secure enough that it > > can be used by the government. > > Non-technical point: the NSA (reportedly) has no intention of using > GAK for classified information. They know that it weakens security. You have this wrong. In fact, NSA *supplies* keys for classified encryption equipment. They never told me whether they "escrowed" copies of the keys they supply -- what do you think? > Do the privacy of the nation's data and the security of its > information infrastructure deserve the same consideration as the > Pentagon's "Confidential" memos? When you're planning to build in a > single point of failure, this is a question you have to ask. In fact, it's much more complex. People with real classified data don't trust encryption at all, and they only use it if they absolutely have to. They, unlike many cypherpunks, remember well that there are other ways to get information besides running big computers, and if you have protections against those in place already, crypto doesn't buy much. But classified data isn't really interesting. Though by any measure there are huge amounts of it, it is dwarfed by the amount of government data that is not classified. To protect that data government agencies will use comercial crypto, and "key recovery" *will* be required in any commercial product purchased by a government agency. As use of crypto becomes commonplace business practice, the government market will be huge, and consequently, commercial products with key recovery *will* be prevelant. Any company that doesn't supply it will be relegated to niche markets, and, if legal winds blow the wrong way, eliminated. Crow This message was automatically remailed. The sender is unknown, unlogged, and nonreplyable. Send complaints and blocking requests to <goddesshera(a)juno.com>.

1 0

Re: FC: FBI is allowed to keep file on civil rights leader (fwd)
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 18:01:46 -0400 From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> To: declan(a)well.com Subject: Re: FC: FBI is allowed to keep file on civil rights leader > > FBI allowed to keep file on New York man's lawful activities > WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court today refused to order the FBI >to purge its file on lawful activities by the former head of a charitable >foundation. Classic error for a news report on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied cert. Lance Lindblom v. FBI, 97-82, Oct. 14, 1997. It did not rule on the merits of the case. The Court did not order the FBI to purge the files. It did not tell the FBI to buy Mr. Lindblom a cup of coffee. It simply decided not to review the decision of the lower court. Welcome back. M.

1 0

Perl 5.00401, gcc 2.7.2.3 ..
by Andreas Brusinsky 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

It was told in the mailinglists that with the integration of the gnu utillities into the source tree it is easy to keep up with changes of their utillities. So what is the reason to stay on little elder versions of perl and gcc? Shouldn't gcc 2.7.2.3 and perl 5.00401 be within the source tree? Why are they not? Does the source tree really depend on the 'old' perl? I got somehow the impression that gcc is a special adapted version so I could understand that this is not integrated but perl? Or am I utterly wrong because perl is a kind of compiler and gcc is a kind of compiler so they dont need to be chaged becaus they work and may be more fixed than real gcc/perl and utillities that demand perl5.00401 can just be twiddled to use OpenBSD/perl .. Thanks for comments. Bye Brusi by E-Mail: ab2(a)inf.tu-dresden.de Tel.-priv: 0351-8499347 (Germany/Dresden) \____

1 0

Bernstein case update: Government appeal brief filed
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The government has filed its 81-page "brief" with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Bernstein case. They argue that the export controls are "constitutionally permissible", that they are not a facially unconstitutional prior restraint on publication, and that the District Court gave Prof. Bernstein "too broad" relief by declaring the law and regulations unconstitutional and partially enjoining their enforcement. The brief has been scanned in as page images, and is at: http://www.eff.org/pub/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/Legal/970116_appeal_brie… Prof. Bernstein's legal team will file its reply by November 10, the government will reply by November 17, the Court will hold a formal hearing sometime during the week of December 8, then the Court will issue its decision. John Gilmore Electronic Frontier Foundation

1 0

FBI allowed to keep file on New York man's lawful activities
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

FBI allowed to keep file on New York man's lawful activities By LAURIE ASSEO Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court today refused to order the FBI to purge its file on lawful activities by the former head of a charitable foundation. The court, without comment, turned away arguments that said the FBI is violating a federal privacy law by keeping a file about the man's years-ago meetings with foreign leaders and political dissidents. Lance E. Lindblom of Larchmont, N.Y., was president of the Chicago-based J. Roderick MacArthur Foundation from 1984 to 1994. The foundation supports civil liberties activities, and Lindblom's duties included meeting with foreign leaders and political dissidents. After filing a request with the FBI, Lindblom learned in 1989 that the bureau kept records that described his meetings with such people. Lindblom and the foundation sued the FBI in federal court in the District of Columbia, saying the 1974 federal Privacy Act required the bureau to purge those files. The law limits federal agencies' authority to keep records describing how people exercise their rights under the Constitution's First Amendment, including rights of free speech and association. Under the Privacy Act, agencies can keep such records only if it is authorized by another law or "within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity." A federal judge ruled for the FBI, saying the files were compiled for legitimate law enforcement purposes. The investigations were not aimed at Lindblom or the foundation, but were aimed at the people with whom they met, the judge said. A federal appeals court agreed last December. Federal agencies can keep records they lawfully collected, the appeals court said, adding that a requirement to purge old files would be too burdensome. In the appeal acted on today, Lindblom's lawyers said agencies must separately justify the need to keep old records, even if they originally were lawfully collected. Keeping Lindblom's file increases the risk that it will be used illegally, his lawyers said, noting the 1996 controversy after it was found that the FBI files of 700 former White House employees had been sent to the White House. Justice Department lawyers said a requirement to purge old files would cause problems if the information later was needed for a new or reopened investigation. The case is Lindblom vs. FBI, 97-82. APTV-10-14-97 1020EDT

1 0

Freeh letter to NYT
by Roger Schlafly 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[From www.nytimes.com, Oct. 16, 1997] To the Editor: "An Attack on Privacy Rights" (editorial, Oct. 3) argues that the approach to encryption that the law enforcement community is advocating has somehow "put the need to eavesdrop on criminals above the privacy rights of ordinary Americans." Nothing could be further from the truth. You fail to mention that the same court-ordered, judicially approved procedures that now apply to wiretaps and electronic data searches would also apply to our ability to obtain decryption keys or information. In fact, what we proposed requires two orders from a judge before we proceed, not just one as now required. There is another issue that, if unaddressed, will have public safety ramifications. Encryption that cannot be deciphered regardless of the number of court orders or new technologies obtained by the police will devastate our ability to fight crime and prevent terrorism. It will nullify the ability to carry out court-authorized searches and seizures of criminal communication and electronic evidence. Policy decisions about encryption should not be left solely to market forces. Congress, the computer industry and law enforcement can work together to craft legislation that balances the public safety with the commercial and private needs of law-abiding Americans. We are not wedded to any particular solution, but feel that some workable solution can be found to insure that law enforcement can gain immediate access to the plaintext of encrypted criminal communication or electronic data that we have lawfully seized. LOUIS J. FREEH Dir., Federal Bureau of Investigation Washington, Oct. 10, 1997 ---------------------------------------------------------------- How can he say this with a straight face? >In fact, what we proposed requires two orders from a judge >before we proceed, not just one as now required. The DOJ proposal, sect 302, says: (A) A Key Recovery Agent, whether or not registered by the Secretary under this Act, shall disclose recovery information stored by a person: (1) ...; or (2) to a law enforcement or national security government agency upon receipt of written authorization in a form to be specified by the Attorney General. It also contradicts his final sentence: >... some workable solution can be found to insure that law enforcement can >gain immediate access to the plaintext of encrypted criminal communication >or electronic data that we have lawfully seized. The term "immediate access" means without having to goto a judge. Roger

2 1

Re: Liberal lawyer joke from Cdn-Firearms Digest V2 #34
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:26 PM -0700 10/16/97, jf_avon(a)citenet.net wrote: >On 16 Oct 97 at 9:58,somebody wrote: > >> Research labs are increasingly replacing rats with lawyers. >> >> There are three reasons for this: >> >> 1. The lawyers are in abundant supply >> 2. The lab workers do not develop any kind of emotional attachment to >>lawyers >> 3. There are things you just can't get a rat to do. Just a word: the "lawyer jokes" sent out recently are at least 10 years old. Calling them "liberal lawyer" jokes doesn't make them any fresher. I suggest original content, in the form of essays or analyses, is better than stale old lawyer jokes. --Tim May The Feds have shown their hand: they want a ban on domestic cryptography ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^2,976,221 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

1 0

Re: (fwd) Import restrictions for crypto code
by alexlh＠xs4all.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Alex Le Heux wrote: [snip] > ps. Lucky - what became of the "Brain"? Brian didn't come back to the US with Lucky as he wanted to develop strong crypto applications and did not want to have to contend with export restrictions. He currently has a desk in the offices of a major Dutch ISP, XS4ALL, so he is nice and close to the backbone and thus has great connectivity. Cheerio, Alex --- I dabble in techno-house and sometimes, I do that badass hip-hop thang... But the F U N K gets me every time!

1 0

Re: Anonymity -> Untraceability -> High Latency?
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 9:19 AM 2/2/96, Nelson Minar wrote: >I've been trying out various mechanisms for anonymity: remailer >chains, HTTP proxies. There's one problem that makes them inconvenient >to use regularly: latency. "Latency" is not necessary for mix security. What is important is the number of messages mixed together in the mix. If it is desired that N = 10 and only 10 messages are entering the mix per hour, then, on average, the mix must wait an hour. E.g., "latency = one hour." If however, 100 messages are entering the mix per hour, then "latency = 6 minutes." >A good Type I remailer chain takes at least an hour to deliver email, >instead of the 15 seconds I'm used to. Mixmaster-style takes even >longer; the delay is important to the security of the system. None of these points is necessarily true. --Tim May Boycott espionage-enabled 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."

1 0

Free Adult Content For Your Web Site!
by IP-Administrator＠sexlink.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Pardon our intrusion, this is a message for adult webmasters. to be removed from this list send a blank e-mail to mailto:remove@sexlink.net ***************************************************************************** ----------ADD FREE CONTENT TO YOUR ADULT WEBSITE TODAY---------- Sex Link Network has just turned on the FREE web content site! You now have the opportunity to add new and exciting content to your adult website. Offer your visitors the following FREE services: Digital Postcards - Both Straight & Gay Available Personals On-line - Both Straight & Gay Available Chatterbox Hotel "The best Chat on the net" - Both Straight & Gay Available Just register with us and you can provide your visitors with new dynamic content. All content programs are served from Sex Link Networks fast computers on T3 dedicated backbones. There is no bandwidth usage on your side. Check out our content and register today! http://services.sexlink.net

1 0