- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

SSL: The early days
by pgut001＠cs.auckland.ac.nz 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I've been trying to find information about the early days of SSL for a paper I'm writing, but I'm finding that someone's comment about the net having a collective memory of about 12 months seems to be true - there doesn't seem to be anything available going back more than a year or so. In particular I'm interested in: - Why/how/when did Netscape decide on SSL? - How long did it take to design the first version? - I've heard a rumour that when it was first presented at a conference, two people independantly broke it before the speaker sat down. Is this true, and what conference was it? The later work on SSL (an open design process, contributions from cryptographers and security experts, IETF standards-track work, etc etc) is well documented, but information on earlier work is hard to find. Does anyone have any pointers to information I could work from? Peter.

1 0

usenet not working with Agent now.
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Agent keeps reporting bad server. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Re: cryptoanalysis 002
by peter.allan＠aeat.co.uk 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> From: Scottauge(a)aol.com > Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 18:36:45 -0400 > Subject: cryptoanalysis 002 > For example, if the crypto-alphabet for e is 23, 45, 190, 200, etc, one can > remove some of the frequency for a letter. This definately makes it harder > to attack with the frequency analysis method because the "resolution" of the > distribution for the letter is lessened to a near randomness. (So it looks, > there are still clues, eh?) I think (from memory) this is called "homoalphabetic". Encyclopaedia Brittanica (Cryptology - article by Gus Simmons) says that it is still vulnerable to frequencies of digraphs, trigraphs etc. But even Gauss was keen on it once. I guess it might have value as a part of another system, making a known plaintext into one of many. Whether it's worth the increased cyphertext size in a system you'd hope to be immune to known plaintext attacks anyway is another question. PA

1 0

Anonymous password changed.
by daemon＠anon.penet.fi 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

You have requested the replacement or assignment of your anonymous password. Your password is now x4anarchy.

1 0

No Subject
by Mike Howell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How can I sign off the MSN forewer? Please tell me how can I quit this MSN thing for ever, I don`t want to pay for this anymore...

1 0

Web Resource on Netspam
by Vipul Ved Prakash 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.metareality.com/~nathan/visit.cgi/html.Spam Title: Spam (Not the Hormel product) <a href="http://www.metareality.com/~nathan/visit.cgi/html.Spam" >[Fighting Spam] : [Graffiti] : [Home] : [Limericks] : [Linkage] An honest politician is one who takes your bribe AND votes as you ask. Spam (Not the Hormel product) Anyone familiar with the usenet has seen it. It's the vile stuff that brain-dead get-rick-quick scheme promoters and professionsal advertisers foist upon us all with increasing regularity. There are (to date) two species of spam, differentiated by the mechanism by which they are delivered. Each has its own defining charateristics, each has its own sub-species, but both have two things in common: they're made possible by the workings of the internet, and they're both examples of the same type of 'cost-shifting' that made junk faxes illegal. Contrary to postal junk mail, where the sender bears the full cost of delivery, the spammer bears only a fraction of the cost of delivery; the remainder of the costs are borne by us, the recipients. It's a waste of your bandwidth, your disk space, and your time. email spam Messages delivered by electronic mail to large numbers of recipients who did not ask for or otherwise solicit the messages. It's the junk mail of the 21st century, only worse. usenet spam Messages delivered by usenet to large numbers of newsgroups whose chartered topics are unrelated to (and may even explicitly forbid) the topic of the message. Not enough people seem to realize that there are constructive ways to deal with it, and to reduce the chance that you'll have to deal with it again in the future. What to do What NOT to do The most effective is to write some polite email to the administrator of the site from which the spam originated. You'll soon learn that most system administrators are very unhappy about users who spam the net. It's always gratifying when they write back to tell you that the offending account has been terminated. Start reading <a href="usenet://news.admin.net-abuse.misc">news.admin.net-abuse.misc to learn more about how to deal with spammers. If there's a 1-800 number, call it to express your displeasure. It might please you to note that 1-800 numbers typically cost them a small amount of money with each call. How much do you pay for your disk space and bandwidth with each unsolicited bit of email? It's only fair, right? Grab your telephone, or even pay them a visit in person. You generally have to have access to a unix command line to find the phone numbers and addresses, unless you're dealing with the same <a href="http://www.metareality.com/~nathan/visit.cgi/spam/html.Offenders">spammers that have been bothering me. Why stick to email? If they're in your area, tell them face-to-face that you object to their tactics. Don't post a follow-up message in the same newsgroup. Do you really think that the spammer is going to re-visit thousands of newsgroups to see what people had to say? The same goes for mailing lists. If you get spammed via a mailing list, never reply to the list. Your words will just get re-broadcast to everyone else on the list, thus doubling the nuisance created by the spammer. Fun stuff that doesn't get results, but might be good for a laugh RecyclingIf they enjoy sending spam, then it only makes sense that they wouldn't mind getting their own, right? Just for kicks, forward each new spam to the spammers who have pestered you in the past. While I can't vouch for its effectiveness, it does reek of poetic justice, and it makes me feel a little better. It usually makes people laugh out loud when I explain it, too. <img src = "http://www.metareality.com/~nathan/images/SMILE.GIF"> A Pre-emptive Anti-Spam TacticWhy wait to get spammed, when you can see them coming in <a href="news:news.admin.net-abuse.misc">news.admin.net-abuse.misc? <a href="http://www.metareality.com/~nathan/visit.cgi/spam/html.p.Pre-empt">Let the spammers know in advance that they will be charged (insert dollar amount here) if they send you any junk mail. Additional references Spam and Anonymous Remailing Services Damien Lucifer (<a href="mailto:ncognito@gate.net">ncognito(a)gate.net) operates an anonymous remailing service. He's put together a page covering spam and remailers, including how to get a remailer to stop spamming you, and it is my pleasure to host this page for him. mail bombing For advanced spam-fighters only. Can concerted emailbombing be employed as a legitimate spam-fighting tactic? Pros, cons, and related issues. About Junk Email Some of the hows and whys of junk email, and tactics you can use to help rid yourself of it. A press release from MCI ...with information about their anti-spam policies. See also their <a href="http://www.mci.com/aboutmci/news/nfr/spam.shtml">online policy statement. Note that MCI's seriousness about these statements has been severely questioned in light of their (mis)handling of the Moneyworld/CHAG spammer. 30 days between announcing that the situation is being dealt with and finally cutting off a spammer with message-per-week spamming speed? This is pretty disgusting in light of the good press MCI got when they announced their spam policies. It's starting to look more like a PR stunt than a policy statement. I can only take comfort knowing that at least their sysadmins are aware of (and frustrated with) the situation. I must disclaim that civil legal issues may be involved in the MCI/Moneyworld dispute, so there may be things going on that the public isn't aware of. Still, for MCI not to have covered its corporate ass does not speak well of MCI's sincerity or the competence of MCI's lawyers. Outlaw Junk EMail Now! Write your legislators, ask them to expand the TCPA to include junk email! Note that as the law is currently written, it is unlikely to be applicable to email. Fighting Junk Email" More information about junk email and related issues. Includes pointers to mechanical tactics for dealing with junk email. Spam FAQ Everything you never wanted to know about net spamming. Get that spammer!Webified TCP/IP tools to aid in the fight against spam. <a href="http://techweb.cmp.com/net/issues/036issue/036law.htm">Litigation to the rescue? Use of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (47 U.S.C. sec 227) to nail junk emails. The case described was settled out of court, but the ideas is intriguing. This commentary, written by a lawyer, does not seem optistic about applying the TCPA directly to junk email, but doesn't rule out the possibility, either. Litigation to the rescue! $500 fines for junk mail via the courts. Sounds like promising tactic for dealing with intra-USA spammings. <a href="http://www.metareality.com/~nathan/visit.cgi/spam/html.FaxLaw">Some commentary on this law was posted to usenet a while back. <a href="http://www.usps.gov/websites/depart/inspect/chainlet.htm">The U.S. Postal Service on Chain Letters Contrary to what the make.money.fast crowd would have you believe, these scams are illegal. See the aforelinked page for details, and and consider talking to the appropriate <a href="http://www.usps.gov/ncsc/locators/find-is.html">postal inspector as well. <a href="http://www.bbb.org/council/complaints/consumerform.html">The Better Business Bureau These folks will be happy to be notified of 'improper selling practices' via the aforelinked form. Anti-Spam lists This is a relatively new phenomenon. People are starting to offer the 'service' of collecting lists of addresses of folks who do not want to get spam. I think this is a bad idea, since it attempts to legitimize junk email, by implying that if an email address is not on the list, it's prefectly OK to send junk email. The other problem with this idea is that there are going to be several of them, and no junkmailer is going to filter their list using each "service." Thus, it will be up to the recipients to track down all of the "services." Currently there are at least three running. One is at http://dm1.com/Epreference/epref.html, one is at http://www.kenjen.com/nospam, and I don't have an URL for the last - it was sent to me via unsolicited email, naturally. Terms of Service and Acceptable usage policies Most Internet service providers require that their customers agree to a set of terms of service (TOS) or an acceptable usage policy (AUP). A random sampling: <a href="http://www.mindspring.com/aboutms/policy.html">Mindspring's policy, Primenet's AUP, MCI's spamming policy, and the terms and conditions for my own ISP, <a href="http://webfaq.halcyon.com/faq/nwn/nwntac.txt">Northwest Nexus (a.k.a. halcyon.com) I should note that while Northwest Nexus doesn't describe spamming in their terms of service, they have booted more than one spammer in the past. It surprises me greatly that they aren't explicit about this in their published terms and conditions. A spamhandling robot This is very "under construction," but worth mentioning anyhow. I'm putting together some perl code to automate the spam-handling process. Common flavors of net.spam The MAKE.MONEY.FAST scheme A direct descendant of the chain letters of old, this is the pyramid scam of the information age... A quick look at the mathematics behind the idea will expose the scam. Phone-sex cretins They post a couple of lines of text-mode heavy breathing, and usually a 1-800 number that you're invited to call. Call the 1-800 number. Really. It costs them money every time you do! They make their money via the 1-900 number that they ask you to call next. So just call the 1-800 number again. And again. And again. <a href="http://www.metareality.com/~nathan/visit.cgi/html.Spam" >[Fighting Spam] : [Graffiti] : [Home] : [Limericks] : [Linkage] Don't just browse here, say something! Speak your mind in this space here: <input type=submit value="Press here to have your words added to the page."> The true beauty of Usenet is the way it allows free communication. You can be rich/poor/ugly/ religious/atheist or a member of any race/religion or be young/old... That's the wonder - everyone can talk to one another and share ideas. Then spam comes along. It fills up newsgroups with so much noise that no one reads it any more. That wondrous method of communication has been lost. That's why I hate spam. You just don't get it, do you? No, deleting one piece of email doesn't take much. Then again, neither does appealing to a system administrator to have the spammer shut down. Two or three bits of junk a day really is something I can live with, but I don't want to. So why should I? Two or three bits of trash by the roadside won't mean the end of the world. Tossing empty cans out the window costs less than having your trash hauled away - what a great opportunity to save money! If litter were acceptable, a public beach would be no place to spend an afternoon. Postal mail costs the sender with each mailing. This keeps junk postal mail to tolerable levels. EMail costs the sender maybe $20/month, period. Are you so fucking stupid that you don't realize what a cesspool the net would be if this were allowed to grow unchecked? -NW People complain about spam and mass E-mailers. But my question is: what's the big deal? Does it REALLY take THAT much PRECIOUS time out of your day to click and delete a piece of E-mail? I think that the people complaining about others taking advantage of an excellent business opportunity ought to just relax a bit. And just HOW does it COST you to deal with SPAM? With ISP's dropping access prices and providing unlimited access to the internet, how could it possibly COST someone to get an E-mail message? I think you people really need to just kick back and relax already. Geeze, if it wasn't SPAM what else would you find to complain about? Spam isn't about content, spam is about quantity and cost shifting. TV spam would be the same ad on every channel at the same time. Print spam would be junk mail sent postage due or charge-on-delivery. With the ads on TV and in newspapers, the advertisers pay the expenses associated with publishing their ads. With net spam, the recipients pay the expenses associated with carrying the ads. That is the key difference. The costs of ads in traditional media help to support the very media that deliver the ads. With net.spam, there are no costs, and the ads just serve to sap the medium. All you need is a free trial account (AOL, interramp, or earthlink, etc are famous for this), and you can broadcast a huge amount of spam before anyone notices. Or, you can pay for an account with MCI, and broadcast huge amounts of spam for 30 days after the sysadmins realize what's going on. -NW Net-based spam is not the only form of spam. There is spam in print and spam in TV advertising. Wouldn't you say every Calvin Klein ad on TV, magazines or billboards is spam? How about Budweiser, Lite beer, and McDonalds commercials. If you see any type of advertising that offends your senses, you should feel free to boycott the products, ask your friends to boycott the products, etc. If the company has an 800 number or web site, let them know that you find their advertising offensive. I am really, really, REALLY tired of being solicited to buy things whenever I log on to my computer. I mean, I pay for the phone line, the software, the hardware, the accounts and my time is worth money as well. I get a LOT of e-mail and a SIZEABLE portion of it is junk e-mail. When I read news, about 10% of it is junk e-mail; more if it is a small newsgroup. I want to know what uninformed idiot is selling my address, or where these people are GETTING it. I have never bought anything over the computer. I have bounced unsolicited junk back to the people who send it. (I love how righteously indignant these people are: they send you mail and expect you to buy something from them and when you fail to perform as expected with joy and gratitude...if you should, in fact, protest them wasting your time and resources...they get downright rude and abusive. The presumptuousness of it just really annoys me.) The capper is that I did some artwork for the anti-Canter- and-Siegel "Green Card Lawyers" tees Joel Furr was offering a while ago. The ultimate clue that I am not interested in spam of any sort, but how could they know? It's just amusing. Let it be known that I am not a test market, nor will I buy any of your crap, be it face cream, thigh cream, green cards, stock options, modems, books, herbs, or the golden goose itself. Not interested. I don't know you, I have no reason to trust you, and you are spamming MY mailbox and expecting ME to reward this with money. No, thank you. I've been online for more than 5 years, and I really long for the "good old days" before the Net was "cool". There ya go. My tuppence. Now...where do I go to put my name on the "Don't Send This Person Crap Mail" list? (Laugh) SPAM is only going to go away if we make sure companies learn that SPAMming doesn't get costumers to buy thier products and it does more to stop potential costumers from buying thier products. I've heard a couple of different conflicting stories about the origins of the use of the word spam in this context. The most popular version suggests that is was inspired by the Monty Python skit in which virtually every item on some restaurant's menu includes spam in some form or other. The waiter's recitation of the menu becomes unintelligible except for '...and spam, spam with..., spam salad, ...with spam, spam mixed with..." and so on. It really picks up when the Vikings start chanting "spam-spam spam, spam, spam-spam spam, spam...." ad nauseum. This is what the net would be like if this stuff was allowed to continue unchecked. If that's not a horrifying thought, maybe you should see the skit in question. My personal belief is that geeks (who make up much of the 'net community (myself included), much of Monty Python's audience, and probably most of Monty Python's cast) just tend to use the word spam when more appropriate words don't come to mind readily. For no particularly good reason, it really stuck this time. -NW Due to popular demand, I've expanded the first couple of paragraphs to better explain what spam is and why it's such a pain in the ass. Personally, I'm getting two to five unsolicited email messages every week. This is up from approximately zero unsolicited messages per week a few years ago when I first started using the Internet and Usenet. It's a trend that has been steadily increa sing, especially for the last year or two. It's a trend that really really worries me. It's a trend that is, worst of all, wasting my time! -NW I an working on a Usenet news server designed to filter spam from a news feed and quietly drop it. Announcements in due course (next few months) but if anyone wants to help with other platforms and live feed debugging please mail me. Wow! Thanks for the help. I'll certainly become an anti-spam activist and use your information to good effect. I don't get it! What is SPAM? Pardon my ignorance but what does "SPAM"ming mean? "SICK PEOPLE AGAINST MAIL"??? For the Spammers that have a web page I visit it with a macro every time that I leave my system idle while connected for more then 5 min. This way at least I'm sucking down their site and causing their site to slow down so those that are interest get bored waiting for an over taxed server to show them just what They get for "ONLY $9.99 A MONTH!!!!" and leave with out buying. The only reason they have the site is to make money. No Money, No Site, No Spam. Very nice -- I like the idea of dialing the 800 number in the ad. One might wish to be sure to mention (if there's a message taker or, even better, a human at the other end) that you saw their ad in (insert newsgroup here) -- and no, you're not interested in buying anything, you just wanted to see what they had. Unfortunately, every time you call the 800 number, chances are you're also adding your own phone number to a database that will result in your receiving "junk phone calls" on a variety of useless subjects. Solution? Make the calls from a pay phone, ideally one that doesn't accept incoming calls. Isn't spam remarkably like the countless hours of television (including but not limited to advertisements) that most of us watched in our childhoods? And to think, whoever controls the information going to the youth of the nation controls the future of the nation. Greedy, stupid corporations played a central role in molding us and shaping our opinions, attitudes, and perspectives. Something to think about, perhaps... <a href="http://www.metareality.com/~nathan/visit.cgi/html.Spam" >[Fighting Spam] : [Graffiti] : [Home] : [Limericks] : [Linkage] n a t e s c a p e </a >@<a href="http://www.metareality.com/"> m e t a r e a l i t y . c o m This page last updated Aug 21 Comments last updated Aug 22

2 1

Court rules faxes are not binding
by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> CINCINNATI, Aug. 21 (UPI) -- A federal appellate court in Cincinnati >ruled this week that faxes are not necessarily legally binding if the >receiving party does not know the communication is coming. > The case stemmed from a 1991-92 strike by 200 Clow Water System Co. >workers who were represented by the United Steelworkers. > The court ruled the Coshocton company, a division of McWane Inc., did >not violate federal labor law when it hired replacement workers after >the union transmitted an unconditional fax offer to return to work in >February 1992. > The union sent its offer by fax at 4:35 p.m. on a Friday, 25 minutes >before the plant closed for the day. The intended recipient claimed he >checked for any communications at 4:30, and when he saw there weren't >any, went home. > On Saturday, Clow hired 80 replacement workers. > The National Labor Relations Board later held that actual knowledge >of the fax was not required. The board said the parties had communicated >by facsimile during their negotiations, and that the facsimile was sent >and received. > But the appellate court said the union had sent only four facsimile >transmissions during 13 months of negotiations. > ``All of these facsimiles contained contract proposals -- a >communication intended to be examined and considered, not a >communication having legal import in and of itself,'' the court said, >ordering the NLRB ruling against Clow must be re-evaluated. > The court said facsimile and electronic mail are becoming >increasingly common forms of business communication, however, both >parties must agree to the use of such media and must be notified when >messages are sent. > ``The critical part of this case is that (the fax) was sent only 25 >minutes before the plant closed,'' David Peck, a lawyer with Taft, >Stettinius & Hollister, the law firm that represented Clow, told United >Press International Wednesday. ``Normal courtesy is to call first and >again after to confirm that a fax has been received.'' > The union claimed Clow committed an unfair labor practice by >permanently replacing economic strikers after the union made an >unconditional offer, as required by federal law, to return to work. > But the court said the fax transmission itself wasn't the issue. > ``The key to this case is simply fair notice,'' the court said in its >decision. ``If the parties did not agree to the method of communication >utilized, and if there is no pattern of conduct reflecting acquiescence >to the method of communication utilized, we will not impute notice of >the communication to the recipient. > ``Communication by facsimile has simplified and streamlined the way >in which business in conducted in this country,'' the court added. >``This technological advance provides a valuable service and benefit, >and our holding should not be taken as an indication that parties should >not use facsimiles to conduct their affairs.'' >-- > C O P Y R I G H T * R E M I N D E R > > This article is Copyright 1996 by United Press International. > All articles in the clari.* news hierarchy are Copyrighted and licenced >to ClariNet Communications Corp. for distribution. Except for articles >in the biz.clarinet.sample newsgroup, only paid subscribers may access >these articles. Any unauthorized access, reproduction or transmission >is strictly prohibited. > We offer a reward to the person who first provides us with >information that helps stop those who distribute or receive our news >feeds without authorization. Please send reports to reward(a)clari.net. >[Use info(a)clari.net for sales or other inquiries.] > > Details on use of ClariNet material and other info can be found in >the user documentation section of our web page: <http://www.clari.net>. >You can also read ClariNet news from your Web browser. > > > _______________________ Regards, Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm. -Ralph Waldo Emerson Joseph Reagle http://rpcp.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html reagle(a)mit.edu E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65 BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E

1 0

# of Real Tim Mays, RTM (r)
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Responding to msg by ravage(a)bga.com (Jim choate) on Tue, 16 Aug 12:57 PM Zero RTM (r) in Manhattan. Maybe more encrypted; only 60% here list.

4 3

"Freedom on Trial," from October 1996 Playboy
by declan＠well.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[Some excerpts follow. Pick up the October issue for the full article. --Declan] Playboy, October 1996 "Freedom on Trial: how the communications decency act played in court" By Declan McCullagh (declan(a)well.com) Day 1 (March 21) In the shadow of the Liberty Bell in downtown Philadelphia, the future of online liberty is being decided. A panel of federal judges has gathered to hear a challenge to the Communications Decency Act, which bans "indecent" or "patently offensive" material from being transmitted or displayed online where minors might access it. That means just about anywhere online. [...] Day 2 (March 22) A key witness today is Robert Croneberger of the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. The judges are pleased with his description of the Internet as a library -- finally, someone who isn't using technobabble. Croneberger testifies about the difficulties and expense of implementing the CDA, noting that his library would have to hire 180 people to review and censor the 2 million listings in its catalog. Russotto, the government lawyer, is skeptical. During her cross-exam, she tries to make the case that the job wouldn't be so difficult as Croneberger portrays it. Q: Can you do a keyword search through your catalog for words related to sex or for the seven dirty words [to find material to restrict]? A: It depends. Q: But a keyword search on sex wouldn't turn up books about physics, would it? A: I doubt it. Q: And a search on sex isn't going to turn up books about gardening? A: Obviously plants proliferate and flowers grow, but it depends on the words you're using. Q: Would a search on sex turn up a biography of Abraham Lincoln? A: I've read many articles about his supposed sex life, or lack thereof. Q: Would a search on sex turn up any books about geology? A: Only if "rock" is put together with "roll." Croneberger's point is subtle but clear. Sex can't be taken out of a library any more easily than it can be separated from life. [...] Day 4 (April 12) The government witnesses take the stand. First up is Howard Schmidt, an Air Force special agent who says he has conducted 30 to 50 investigations of online porn. The judges are growing weary of demonstrations and sex, so when Schmidt offers to download provocative images from Usenet groups, the panel asks for G-rated animals instead. After the second or third waterfowl image, Judge Sloviter rules, "I think we've seen enough ducks." [...] Beyond its sheer stupidity, [Carnegie Mellon University computer scientist Dan Olsen's -L18 self-labelling scheme] seems to be built with prudery rather than technology. During cross-examination, the judges didn't appear to take him seriously: Q: If you thought about posting a centerfold from Playboy, would you think the image might be indecent or patently offensive for persons under 18? A; If we consider the local community that consists of Dan, Dan would be offended. Q: And how about the seven dirty words. A: Dan would be offended. Judge Buckwalter: Who's Dan? Judge Sloviter: Yes, who's Dan? A: That's me. I'm sorry. Judge Dalzell: Oh, he's the community. He is an expert on what would offend him. A: It's a relatively small community, but it's the one I know best. Buckwalter: I thought Dan was an acronym. A moment later, our lawyers show Olsen a list of Internet addresses and ask if they appear to be porn sites deserving of unsuitable-for-children tags. He hesitates, then says, "I don't know, but I wouldn't go there." Looking over the list, Judge Dalzell adds the punch line. "Chick of the Day could be poultry," he suggests. "You really are in for ducks and poultry," says Judge Sloviter. "It's a leitmotif." Bruce Ennis, counsel for the ALA, asks Olsen how content providers would verify the ages of those who visit their sites. Olsen stammers a bit and then hits on an idea. Ask the Social Security Administration! It keeps records of such things. Big Brother couldn't have said it better. Day 5 (April 15) The government has a tough road ahead. It has to convince three skeptical judges that enforcing the CDA would not become a boondoggle. Olsen, at least, believes it can be done. When asked if his rating system would slow the growth of the Net, he quickly responds, "Absolutely not!" But everyone in the courtroom seems to feel Olsen is being a weasel. Judge Dalzell, the most Net-savvy judge and the only one with young kids (I'm guessing the two are related), helps pin the inventor down. "Assume a chat group -- say, students from 13 to 18 -- is talking about the CDA. In the course of the chat, an 18-year-old is exasperated and types in 'Fuck the CDA.' Is it your proposal that before he types the message, he should tag it -L18?" Dalzell is paraphrasing Cohen v. California, a First Amendment case in which the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a teenager who wore a jacket that read "Fuck The Draft." Some of Dalzell's other questions were equally astute. "If in one issue of The Economist the word 'fuck' appears," he asks Olsen, "the library putting it online would have to go through the entire issue?" "Somebody would have to make that judgement," Olsen replies. He suggests that librarians band together to censor material. He insists his plan is "flexible." To that, Bruce Ennis reponds testily, "Is it flexible if you, the librarian, risk going to jail for two years if you make the wrong judgment and put material online that is found to be patently offensive for a minor?" [...] Sloviter isn't finished. After Olsen claims that a voluntary rating system developed at MIT is unfeasible because it will "slow the flow" online, she asks how an adult could show -L18 tagged materials to a mature teenager. Olsen replies that a "teacher or parent could log on." "Wouldn't that slow the flow?" the judge asks. Flustered, Olsen suddenly discharges a series of staccato high-pitched giggles. It's the damnedest thing that I have ever heard -- it sounds like a rabbit being tortured to death. The galley stares in horror. Thus ends the testimony of our best witness -- and we didn't even call him to the stand. Day 6 (May 10) During closing arguments, Justice attorney Tony Coppolino dances around providing a legal definition for indecency. He hints that it would include only hard-core porn but concedes the government can't guarantee that an ambitious prosecutor somewhere wouldn't take on an absurd case. Judge Sloviter is growing impatient: "I've been taking the position for 17 years that people should know what they can be prosecuted for," she says "I still don't understand" what indecency means under the CDA. "We've been trying to get at this for 40 minutes," grumbles Judge Dalzell. [...] EPILOGUE We have won -- for now. The government's appeal will reach the Supreme Court during the next few months. If the Court upholds the lower court decision, outraged right-wing groups will demand action. Congress will spring to attention. Bills will be drawn up, campaign funds raised, and porn once again waved in the Senate chamber. Censorship is often championed by adults who want to protect children from a world the adults do not understand. During the hearing, Judge Buckwalter raised this issue while discussing the computer gap between parents and children that helps fuel fears of online dangers. "In another generation that will fade from the picture, don't you think?" he asked. Archaic restrictions over what we can share online, however, may not. ###

1 0

Re: RC4 RC2 & MD5???
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:58 PM 8/21/96 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: >I assume then that the Netscape encryption is Symetric Key, so how do >RC4 RC2 and MD5 compare and contast? TIA RC2 and RC4 are both both variable key length cyphers developed by Ron Rivest for RSA Data Security Inc. They were both protected by trade secret, but both have been reverse engineered and posted to the net. Both of them have fast-path export approval if their key length is 40 bits or less. MD5 (Message Digest 5) is not a cypher but a secure hash. If takes an input of variable length and computes a 128 bit hash. Recently some weaknesses have been found in MD5 leading to the recomendation that new applications be coded to use SHA1 instead. As a note: Any good secure hash can be used as a symetric key cypher. Usually doing so involves considerably more computation than a symetric cypher of equal strength. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Frantz | Cave ab homine unius lebri | Periwinkle -- Consulting (408)356-8506 | [Beware the man of one | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | book] - Anonymous Latin | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0