- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: The New GAK-Clipper Thing will Fail
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 AM 10/3/96 -0800, Timothy C. May wrote: > >Comparing the latest GAK/Clipper III (or is it Clipper IV?) thing to the >original Clipper announcement in April 1993, I sense a lot more confusion, >a lot more thorny issues, and a lot more vagueness. They just seem more >disorganized and less committed than the last time around. Each iteration >of Clipper gets less focussed and seems to last a shorter time before the >next version is being talked about. A good thing, of course. Sort of like a "political" version of Zeno's paradox? B^) > >Some random points: >--the large pool of _existing_ crypto products means people will be using >these products for years to come (possibly within GAK wrappers, as just >noted)...unless the New World Order (tm) somehow locates, seizes, or >otherwise makes criminals out of those who use a once-legal product, how >could this be stopped? And I suspect that there will be large numbers of people using non-GAK simply as a protest. Trying to convict even one of them will be difficult; the government has to admit that they're not doing anything illegal, etc. Yet, if the gov't FAILS to prosecute them, that'll destroy an law requiring GAK. [snip] >(On the "costs" issue, running these Key Authorities, staffing them, >complying with subpoenas (and who will _fight_ the subpoenas?), I think it would be appropriate to contact each of the companies which have publicly signed on to this most recent propsal (Clipper 3.XX? Clipper IV?) and point out that (if they still won't revoke their approval) they should publicly and irrevocably commit to challenge each and every key subpoena with a full legal challenge (to the SC if necessary), INCLUDING informing and participation of the key owner/user, with all of his attorney fees paid for by an insurance policy issued specifically for the purpose. This process would probably take at least months, if not years. (This is important, because I believe that wiretaps have set a false precedent: AT+T (before breakup) and local telcos afterwards, being monopolies, had no motivation to challenge wiretap orders, and the practice was to not inform those tapped, perhaps not even after the tap was removed. There is no reason to assume, however, that key-escrow systems should follow that precedent, because the relationship between AT+T and government was not an "arm's length" one. Presumably, key-escrow companies should be entitled, no REQUIRED to verify the legitimacy of any key-release. "It's only fair!" ) The resulting legal atmosphere would become so distasteful to the Dept. of Injustice that it would make key escrow useless as a practical tool, even though it would exist as a technicality. If the DOI objected, companies need merely say the magic words "Richard Jewell" and all ordinary citizens would recognize the problem. The point, of course, is NOT to encourage these companies to support Clipper IV. Rather, goal is to suggest to them a "poison pill" which would make their cooperation meaningless in the end, while at the same time giving them a 2-year free 56-bit export. Think of it as a monkey-wrench they can throw into the works. We can use such a proposal as a sort-of "loyalty to freedom and their fellow citizens oath" because any company which refused such a REASONABLE protection to ordinary citizens would be, in effect, giving their middle finger to the public. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

RE: The Right to Keep and Bear Crypto
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:39 AM 10/3/96 -0400, Mullen Patrick wrote: >This may (will?) limit the products which are produced by large corporations, >as their need for a single, globally distributable product is respected. >However, smaller companies who have neither the desire nor finances to >distribute their product on a global scale will be unaffected. Shareware/ >freeware products will also be unaffected (unless someone from another >country pulls it off a website, or similar means). > >However, all of this is irrelevant, because I must say, Tim May has the >proper idea -- We may have the right to bear crypto, but the government >has the right to limit the types/amounts of crypto we bear. > >** Success in this matter is classifying crypto as speech ** >Patrick While I agree we shouldn't push the crypto/arms connection, on the other hand I think we can push BACK: If the government tries to equate crypto with arms,take the position that while we disagree with this equation, to the extent the government is using it, it must take the good with the bad and accept the "keep and bear arms" interpretation literally. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

paging nets
by Jeff Ubois 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Interesting recycled bits from Newsbytes concerning a BBC story drawn from Usenet: BBC Blows Radiopager Security Systems Wide Open LONDON, ENGLAND, 1996 OCT 2 (NB) -- By Steve Gold. The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has revealed that radiopaging messages on the UK's paging networks can be read by anyone with a radio scanner and suitable PC software. In addition, the British TV company claims that it is also possible to insert bogus messages onto the paging networks using instructions on the Internet. ... BBC journalists, meanwhile, said that UK radiopaging transmissions were unencrypted and, as such, were insecure when viewed alongside digital cellular phones, where signals are encrypted. ...the BBC claimed it had been shown messages reporting on the activities of Tony Blair, the head of the British Labor Party, along with a message referring to a residence of a member of Royalty. Newsbytes noted that the same system is used in the US.

1 0

EzStego in Java!: Now Disappearing At A Site Near You
by romana＠glamazon.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

EzStego, my tool for "steganography made easy", now has its own web site at http://www.fqa.com/ezstego/ EzStego is currently alpha software. Use it at your own risk. It is a reimplementation in Java, with much improvement, of my notorious shareware product, Stego. EzStego is also shareware. I have made the source code available for peer review and verification. EzStego and EzSteggy are (C) Romana Machado 1996. All rights reserved. Romana Machado romana(a)fqa.com http://www.fqa.com/romana/ http://www.glamazon.com/

1 0

Re: Censorship?
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> What say ye?? > > :From: Zimm2(a)gnn.com (Zimm2) > :Newsgroups: alt.security.pgp > :Subject: Cypherpunks engaged in censorship? > :Date: Wed, 02 Oct 1996 08:39:50 > : > :It has come to my attention that Cypherpunks no longer allows users of > :Microsoft browsers to access their archives. The "cypherpunks archives" is not owned by the cypherpunks or maintained by toad.com (which is the host of the actual list). The owner of infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks webpage maintains the archive. It is his effort and his choice to restrict the browser. Anyone is free to provide an archive the list. And anyone can read the list. > :Is it contradictory for an organization who proclaims an interest in the free > :exchange of ideas through the mechanism of the Internet to limit the exchange > :of ideas using an individual's software decisions as the criteria? Agreed. But the cypherpunks is not an "organization" in the strictest sense. The only "official" aspect of cypherpunks is the list hosted at toad.com. > :Are issues of annonymity and privacy and the encouragement of private use of > :powerful encryption and remailer tools secondary to and less important than a > :crusade against a software manufacturer? Of course not. But the owner of http://infinity.nus.sg/cypherpunks disagrees and since it's his website and he pays for it and compiles it... me -------------------------------------------------------------- Omegaman <mailto:omega@bigeasy.com> PGP Key fingerprint = 6D 31 C3 00 77 8C D1 C2 59 0A 01 E3 AF 81 94 63 Send a message with the text "get key" in the "Subject:" field to get a copy of my public key. --------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: support for "crack DES"
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:26 PM 10/3/96 +0000, Omegaman wrote: >Considering the situation -- considering that RSA has even signed on >to this scheme -- I'd have to say that I don't give a rat's ass what >Bill Gates claims. If Micro$oft bucks the system, I'll gladly >applaud their stand. > >The situation is not good at all. > >Cracking DES (whether distributed or through a hardware crack, or >both!) seems critical at this point. Just remember that it would be far better to make the crack look easy, than to make it look hard. quantity 9000+, $1,000 Pentiums for a year (plus maybe $500,000 in electricity) looks "hard." 1000 dedicated chips (whether they be FPGA or custom or...) for 1.5 months or so looks "easy." The latter crack looks far more likely to be repeated. The former is OBVIOUSLY a stunt. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Margaret Milner Richardson loses her breakfast...
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>From the Wall Street Journal Wednesday October 2, Page 1: Use of the internet to attract tax-dodgers rings alarm bells at the IRS. The rapidly expanding new worlds of the internet and electronic money are stirring deep concern at the IRS. "We know that some foriegn banks are now using the internet to solicit new customers with promises of complete anonymity and a haven from all taxes," IRS commissioner Margaret Milner Richardson said. She said this issue is being "carefully monitored" by tax administrators around the world. Ms. Richardson, in a recent speech, cited a world-wide-web advertisement offering a "one-of-a-kind book" covering topics such as, "Banking in Silence" and offering information on setting up an offshore trust that "could include protection from a large IRS assessment." Ms. Richardson's reaction: "I almost take that personally." Another ad touts "excellent interest rates, offered in a stable, tax-free environment...Clients communicate with the bank any time from anywhere via the internet." Ms. Richardson said: "How would you like to be responsible for administering tax laws and have to read these ads over breakfast?" Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "'Bart Bucks' are not legal tender." -- Punishment, 100 times on a chalkboard, for Bart Simpson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/

4 4

Re: ITAR satellite provision
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, jim bell wrote: > The wording was > clearly intended to be an exception to a rule. What the wording doesn't > include is the "exception to the exception," most likely because they > weren't thinking in too great a detail when they wrote the regulations. Yow. The "if we put it in a rocket it's exportable" interpretation made me think twice before posting the text of that definition, because it's seductive and wrong. I posted it because it's amusing to think about and because we all had a good laugh about it at the Mac crypto conference; but I'd feel like a jerk if someone got themselves in a lot of trouble with an enthusiastic misreading of that sentence out of pages and pages of regulations (plus quite a few more pages of opinions interpreting those regulations). > It appears that the government left a loophole so large that you could > drive a truck...er...shoot a rocket through it. If you think you've found an enormous loophole in a regulation which has been around for 15-20 years, you should double-check your research and get a good nights' sleep. Law is like science this way - if you think you have found room-temperature fusion you should stop and check your work. It's much more likely that you're not reading carefully or you've missed something. -- Greg Broiles | "We pretend to be their friends, gbroiles(a)netbox.com | but they fuck with our heads." http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | |

1 0

Re: Clipper III on the table
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:50 PM 10/3/96 -0400, Anonymous wrote: > >Ernest Hua <hua(a)chromatic.com> wrote: >> I predict, therefore, Netscape and RSA would NOT capitulate to this >> latest bitter carrot. > >Huh? RSA has already gone over to the dark side. According to >http://www.rsa.com/PRESSBOX/releases/keyrecov.htm: > "The recently announced Key Recovery Alliance, of which RSA is a part, ..." I think we should refer to what they are pushing as the "Key Recovery Alliance Program". K.R.A.P. is a good description as to what we are going to get from them. --- | "Remember: You can't have BSDM without BSD." - alan(a)ctrl-alt-del.com | |"The moral PGP Diffie taught Zimmermann unites all| Disclaimer: | | mankind free in one-key-steganography-privacy!" | Ignore the man | |`finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ | alano(a)teleport.com |

5 5

Re: Fw: Re: ITAR satellite provision
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:17 AM 10/3/96 -0400, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Remo Pini wrote: >> Date: Thu Oct 03 08:08:42 1996 >> > >* A launch vehicle or payload shall not, by reason of the launching >> > >* of such vehicle, be considered an export for purposes of this >> > >* subchapter. >> > Okay, everybody, call Estes! We've got some crypto to export...er...laun >> > ch! >> If I get the above wording correctly (unicorn, help me!), it is sufficient >> to put the cryptostuff on a disc in a LAUNCHABLE device, it never says that >> the payload has to be delivered by air. So, just put that thing in a bag >> and get it through customs... (or does "by reason of ..." mean that the >> exclusive means of export allowed is launching ?) > >The launching alone will not cause it to be an export. If it is launched >and then ends up outside the U.S., it could be an export. Certainly if it >is launched with the purpose of exporting crypto, it will be an export. Too bad you didn't support this with a logical argument. The wording was clearly intended to be an exception to a rule. What the wording doesn't include is the "exception to the exception," most likely because they weren't thinking in too great a detail when they wrote the regulations. But if the regulation is "wrong," the fault of that is those who wrote the regulation. (and we, the public, are entitled to assume that the regulation is "right" in its literal meaning.) It appears that the government left a loophole so large that you could drive a truck...er...shoot a rocket through it. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 3