- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

How the Gov't. "Deputizes" Corporations to Enforce Laws
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 4:27 AM 1/2/96, Felix Lee wrote: >compare with software piracy. when was the last time a kid in your >neighborhood was busted for unlicensed copying of software? and >software is big business, lots of suits and $$$. they can try to make >disassemblers illegal, but it's not likely to succeed. Though I generally agree with the point that laws can and are skirted (I've argued this too many time myself to repeat it again here), this point about software piracy needs to be critiqued. The software piracy laws are usually targetted at _corporations_. The Software Publisher's Association has very effectively caused corporations to launch extensive anti-piracy programs (including the very audits of disk drives that so many on this list think is a violation of their human rights). As with the drug laws, which corporations have been "deputized" (= threatened) to enforce via drug testing, urine tests, random searches, etc. Whit Diffie has been making this point for several years, that the drug laws may not be very enforceable on street corners, but by threatening corporations with loss of contracts, shutdown of plants, seizure of assets, and even criminal prosecution if they fail to take approved steps to create a "drug-free workplace," the long arm of the law is supplemented by corporate enforcement. The "War on Drugs," "Just Say No," and "FooCorp Maintains a Drug-Free Workplace" sorts of campaigns. (When I was at Intel, 1974-86, nobody cared what drugs were used in the evenings, weekends, etc., so long as one did not come to work stoned or otherwise impaired. Now, like most other large corporations, there are posters up on the walls with childish slogans about the dangers of "substance abuse," extensive drug tests for new employees (not sure about existing employees), employee training seminars devoted to substance abuse, etc. Not because Andy Grove sees a drug problem, but because of the drum beat of "Just Say No!" hysteria and the threats of government sanctions. Corporations have been enlisted into the War on (Some) Drugs.) The same applies to software piracy. Nobody expects casual, personal copying to stop, but anyone in a company can anonymously narc out the company to the SPA and law enforcement. The SPA and cops may then decide to "make an example" out of the company, launching raids, detailed audits of all machines, and the levying of huge fines for copies of software which are thought to be illegal. (This course of action seems to happen regularly in the Bay Area...the press is usually invited along or tipped off, and the evening news shows some company shut down for a day as SPA and law enforcement agents carry off dozens of bootlegged copies of WordPerfect and Excel.) The drug and software piracy cases give us some hints about how restrictions on "illegal crypto" are likely to be enforced. The "casual user" will not be targetted. He can pretty much expect to see no effective enforcement. However, the Lockheeds and Apples will face sanctions, loss of contracts, asset forfeiture, etc., unless they take "positive steps" to ensure that PGP, BlackNet, non-GAKked crypto, anonymous remailers, and other illegal programs are not being used on their systems. This will entail packet sniffers checking for the usual signs, audits of employee workstations and PCs, posted policies on "cybersubstance abuse" and its dangers, etc. (I'm only slightly joking here.) While this will still not stop all crypto use--just as tax evasion continues, drug use is rampant, and software piracy is done to some extent by nearly everyone--it will halt certain types of rapid deployment, pushing crypto use to the fringes and away from mainstream use. It will terrorize the Intels and Merrill Lynches of the country into being enforcers of the laws. This is how things are being done in these waning years of the 20th Century. --Tim May 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

NSA gets into the ISP business
by nobody＠flame.alias.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Recently I went out shopping for a cheaper ISP. I found one which was very inexpensive. Too inexpensive. At first I was thrilled...then I began to wonder how they could charge so little. Pcix.com is offering static ip address, domain name, etc, the whole schebang for $20 a month, or $75 if you want a dedicated line. That's less then TLG, and TLG is a non-profit organization. As the saying goes, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. It seems our government friends have found themselves a new hobby. I'm not sure exactly what this sting operation was set up for, but I'm sure you can use your imagination. The user agreement is very interesting. It states: 1) You're not allowed to upload any encryption software (even if you don't export it) or have any strong crypto in your shell account, and 2) They are allowed to monitor anything you send over their network. Spooks' dream ISP. Highlights from the user agreement: Section 2.7(b) > Member further agrees not to upload to the PCIX services any data or > software that cannot be exported without the prior written > government authorization, including, but not limited to, certain > types of encryption software. Section 4.1 > PCIX may elect to electronically monitor any and all traffic > which passes over our Wide Area Network. This monitoring may include > public as well as private communications and data transfers from our > Members and to our Members as well as any and all communications and > data transfers to and from any other internet sites. PCIX will > monitor our Members and those who use or transmit communications or > other data over our network to try and ensure adherence to > international, federal, state and local laws as well as the PCIX > Terms of Service Agreement.

1 0

RE: Why Net Censorship Doesn't Work
by Bob Bruen, MIT Lab for Nuclear Science 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

DCF wrote: >Thought control is a very difficult task. It always has been. The >Inquisition, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of >China tried but three of the four are no longer with us. Short of >totalitarian controls, thought controls will be ineffective. And >totalitarian controls are difficult to impose these days. While thought control is difficult, one cannot ignore the damage done trying to do it. All of the above examples were expensive in terms of human suffering and death toll for long periods of time. The controls were effective for some time with long periods for recovery. The facists may lose in the end but the price of victory is very high. I fear the current and future efforts at controls will be costly no matter what the outcome. bob

1 0

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers (fwd)
by Steve Gibbons 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In Article: <v02120d01ad0fdd14e993(a)[192.0.2.1]>, shamrock(a)netcom.com (Lucky Green) wrote: # At 22:51 1/2/96, Steve Gibbons wrote: # >I had a similar thought about a month ago. In particular, I was thinking that # >skyrise office buildings would be a great market for ISPs to target. Rent a # >closet in the basement/top floor close to the telco demarc. Run lots of # >UTP to # >the cients through the existing conduit, ceiling acces, air ducts, or whatever # >and boom, lots of clients, low overhead, telco bills cut to 1/2 of the # >competitions'. Up-front costs might (or might not be) higher, since the wire # >installation would now be the burden of the ISP. # [...] # >FWIW, (and if anyone winds up doing something like this, I want a "finders # >fee" ;-) ) # Sorry, I thought of this months ago :-) But did you post/publish? :) # But there is an even better # business opportunity out there. Wireless T1 service covering a whole # downtown area. I speced the whole system for the last company I worked for # before they ran out of money. My calculations show that you can deliver # close to T1 speed to corporate customers at fraction of the cost using land # lines. In the best case scenario, you can produce the individual connection # at below $200. No land line based ISP can ever touch that. The total cost # for a land line based IPS is at least $395/T1. Set-up fee is lower too. # Best, the whole thing can be set up self financing. If I wasn't so busy # with other projects, I'd implement it myself. I'd be interested in seeing your numbers and cost breakdowns. I'd really be interested in the up-front costs that would be associated with the equipment and set-up time/training that will help "insure" data privacy over wideley broadcast media. The up-front costs for ~T1 capable tranceivers isn't insignificant either. I figure ~$10K up front (maybe half of that, maybe twice when you include management overhead) Amortize over 3 years, and compare. All of this is assuming that the bandwidth is available on the airwaves to handle ~200 ~T1s. (If we're talking $200.00/mo. for T1, sign me up tomorrow, and my neighbor, and his, and hers, and... *poof* no more bandwidth in a "decently" populated metro area or even a downtown. (Back of the envelope calculations show that ~200 T1 ~= 1 TV station [although I might be off by an order of magnitude.]) I apologize if this is off topic, but the crypto part still applies (moreso, even!) to broadcast over the airwaves. (Besides, I'm sure that this list has enough subscribers that are shelling out $200-$500/mo. for 56K/Frac T1/ISDN that they'd be interested in a less expensive alternative.) -- Steve(a)AZTech.Net

1 0

Re: NYT's _Unmuzzling the Internet_
by Loren James Rittle 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jaron Lanier wrote in the _The New York Times_, January 2, 1996, p. A15: ``The other day, I came up with a way to easily evade the proposed American restrictions. My simple idea would be to create a computer program, dubbed `Unmuzzle,' which would deposit incomprehensible fragments of any forbidden material in different foreign computers (though maybe not Germany's). The contraband communication would only be reassembled into a coherent whole when downloaded in the home of the user back in the United States, where it would become protected speech, as in any other medium.'' Is this the state to which the Internet must evolve to withstand attack from the possible near-future legislation contained within the current draft of the Telecommunications Reregulation Bill? The Internet technology that was designed to withstand network outages by routing around the problem must now, perhaps, also be designed to allow information to be split for storage and transmission to navigate around mere political insanity. I know: "Cypherpunks write code!", but something seems amiss with the technical solution proposed in the opinion editorial quoted above. Many questions are begged in my mind. At first, the Jaron proposal sounds like an interesting thought experiment but a total waste of bandwidth, both CPU and network, to me. The unconstitutional Bill must be defeated in Congress, by that Presidential veto pen that Clinton has become so fond of using recently or the Court system, if absolutely necessary. If none of that happens, then surely technology can be used to route around this "political" problem. It just seems like a shame to have to expend technical effort and valuable network resources to play games to meet the letter of a law, which would so clearly break the direct spirit of the Constitution, if signed into Law and later found during a Supreme Court battle to "pass constitutional muster," as they like to say. Under my model, which may be different than Jaron's, I assume the raw data is useless without a recipe, or algorithm, if you prefer. Jaron doesn't say how the ``incomprehensible fragments of any forbidden material'' are known to be joinable and how they are to be joined so I invented this as the missing glue to discuss his idea in this forum. I assume a recipe would be a new base item fetchable via a standard URL. It would disclose the location of raw data sets, how they should be joined and the resultant data-type of the information, if the recipe were to be followed. In this way, it might be possible to work a decoder directly into Mosaic/NetScape/HotJava/<name your favorite WWW browser here>. (Perhaps a self-imposed rating could be included within the recipe as additional information bits. Or, perhaps the recipe could be signed by one or more reviewers, which may be trusted by end-users. These features are mentioned only as side features, they do not affect the basic operation to circumvent the letter of the proposed Law. Back to the questions begged and partial solutions. For instance, if one provides, in a distributed fashion, data sets --- which taken apart are not indecent in anyone's mind since they appear completely random --- and a recipe to generate information from the data sets --- which may construct something which might be considered indecent --- does anyone violate any portion of the insane Indecent Bill, if passed by Congress and signed into Indecent Law by the President? Does the person who set up the information split get in trouble? Do the people pulling in recipes and various piece of random-looking data sets get in trouble? Do the data set warehousers get in trouble, even if they could have had no direct way to know the raw pieces of data that they stored were to something eventually seen to be indecent when a recipe was followed. Do the recipe warehousers get in trouble, since they could have known what might be created if all data sets were obtained and joined as proscribed by the recipe? What if end-user client software was taught to do all the steps required to follow a recipe automatically? Same as last question, except the user was explicitly asked before any recipe was followed to completion? I think that the Court would be hard-pressed to find a difference between distribution of something indecent and a recipe known to create something indecent from raw data. But, what if recipes were used for everything, not just items thought to be borderline indecent to totally obscene. Under this assumption, if it could be shown that a recipe and raw data warehousers had no knowledge of each other's contents, they could do no self-policing. It appears that raw data warehousers have "no knowledge" of recipe warehousers as long as the raw data contains no reference to the recipe. The recipe warehousers appear to have no such luck since they contain URLs that point to the raw data chunks required to form coherent information. Recipe warehousers could follow the recipe to "check" content. Finally, on a different tangent, why do the raw data pieces have to be stored on different machines in different countries, if by themselves they are unreadable? Since I believe it is the recipe, not the contributing raw data that presents a problem, it seems like this must be the piece to be stored external to the U.S. For example, only the recipe need be stored abroad in a nice little computer in the Netherlands. Assuming the recipe included only URL-style pointers to the data sets' distributed location and mixing method, a recipe should be quite small. Imagine the Government trying to explain to a jury that random looking transmissions taken together in some exotic manner --- as described by a file fetched from outside the U.S. --- equals some filthy text or image or some other unpopular political speech. Using these rules, I could probably find three passages of text in the 100,000's of pages composing the U.S. Code that when XOR'd together generate something obscene. To make the Government's job even harder before a jury, what if the recipe to be fetched from the foreign country always generated the First Amendment text when followed directly. Imagine the Government's surprise when the Defense later shows a recipe involving the exact same information sets that, perhaps, yields the text of the First Amendment, The Indecent Bill itself or another interesting historical document. What if certain implementations of software that decode these recipes could infer another recipe implicitly encoded within the fetched data sets which were required to follow the explicitly given recipe. Since the information required to regenerate the First Amendment text will have always been pulled, in its entirety, an external observer must concluded that the receiver might have plainly followed the directions in the recipe leading to its generation instead of any hidden inferred recipe for the questionably indecent text or image. That sounds like reasonable doubt to me, regardless of the facts of the case. The Defense can always argue that the client was just trying to express the First Amendment in a novel manner, which happens to be true in more ways than one in this case. :-) The Jaron proposal does have some major benefits at least as I have framed the idea. These need to be mentioned explicitly, in case the important side goal was too subtle expressed above. I reverse the location of the bulk of the data required to store the real information. The recipe, which is assumed to be small with respects to the size of the raw data, is stored in any Internet friendly location (i.e. most of the world except the U.S. after the CDA passes) and pulled into the U.S. as required. The raw data is stored within the U.S., randomly spread between data set servers. When arranged in this manner, the bulk of the data continues to be stored as it would have been before stupid U.S. regulations took affect. This final analysis might sound U.S. centric. It was not meant to be. I assume that any information replication scheme that might have been used could continue to be used. For example, one recipe might exist for each regional replication that existed. Hopefully, the recipes themselves would be replicated in many Internet friendly locations. I welcome informed legal comments on this modified proposal. Regards, Loren -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQCVAwUBMOpKUv8de8m5izJJAQH+cgP+MDO6TK5s1MkkiWcvSKP9wwoVn0VqMM+U hPRGQJ2MjL3s7r9mPTqlbnPOllI4FO6rBQt5vqmzMnemFG1k94REvmGHuSMxZ7xV zoqYcvZzxdG2KwKBiLWiilirA0IrDV1MQJ4i7xMYYdOoOoeN1VnUbgHW9iWquwKT tIpWzbFFGO0= =m0bM -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 1

Re: Errata for _Applied Crypto_
by markh＠wimsey.bc.ca 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Wink Junior <winkjr(a)teleport.com> writes: > Bruce Schneier <schneier(a)counterpane.com> has an errata file for the second > edition of _Applied Cryptography_ available on request. Hopefully he will > also make it available via the Web. Hats off to Bruce for making this > information available in a timely, cost-effective manner. It is available from the Wimsey crypto archive (thanks Bruce!) ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto/Doc/applied_cryptography/2nd_ed_errata-1.0 -- Mark Henderson -- markh(a)wimsey.bc.ca, henderso(a)netcom.com, mch(a)squirrel.com PGP 1024/C58015E3 fingerprint=21 F6 AF 2B 6A 8A 0B E1 A1 2A 2A 06 4A D5 92 46 cryptography archive maintainer -- ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto ftp://ftp.wimsey.com/pub/crypto/sun-stuff/change-sun-hostid-1.6.1.tar.gz

1 0

Re: [local] Syracuse new york
by Daniel Miskell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Douglas F. Elznic writes: >Are their any interested people in having a meeting in the syr area? I most certainly would. I currently reside in the western ny state area. Anybody else interested? Munster --- _________________________________ *!Cheese Doctrine:!* Though cultured over time, and aged to perfection, one must not yield to produce mold. One must also not belittle themselves by conforming to the "whiz", but melt over the unprocessed ideas of Ghuda. _________________________________

1 0

725+ Search Engines
by positzzzsu＠mailexcite.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

!!!LOWEST PRICE EVER!!!!! REGULAR $89......ONE WEEK ONLY...$59 we10 tra WE WILL SUBMIT YOUR WEBSITE OR HOMEPAGE TO 725+ SEARCH ENGINES AND PROVIDE YOU WITH A REPORT SHOWING ALL SUCCESSFUL SUBMISSIONS!! WORRY FREE INTERNET TRANSACTION---WE WILL SUBMIT YOUR SITE AND E-MAIL YOUR REPORT WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIPT OF YOUR FAXED CHECK....WE WON'T EVEN DEPOSIT IT UNTIL YOUR SUBMISSION IS COMPLETE...IF WE DON'T DO AS WE SAY, YOU CAN ALWAYS STOP PAYMENT ON CHECK....NOW WE HAVE TO TRUST YOU, AS WE WILL HAVE COMPLETED THE WORK BEFORE YOUR BANK HAS EVEN HONERED YOUR CHECK!!!! RESERVE YOUR SPOT NOW!!! DO NOT RESERVE YOUR SPOT VIA E-MAIL, MUST BE FAX!!! YOU CAN FAX US A CHECK TO RESERVE YOUR SPOT AND WE WILL IMPORT IT INTO OUR CHECK PROCESSING SOFTWARE, NO NEED TO MAIL IT. MAKE IT OUT TO K.L. COMPANY AND FAX TO 714 768-3650 WITH THE FOLLOWING INFO YOUR NAME: COMPANY NAME: URL OF SITE: http:// e-mail Address: Title of site(up to 25 words) Description of site(up to 50 words): Keywords(up to 6) Phone# QUESTIONS? ALL ORDERS WILL BE SUBMITTED WITHIN 48 HOURS.... we10

1 0

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers
by James A. Donald 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 09:07 PM 1/1/96 -0500, David Mandl wrote: >I agree. It's not a good idea to assume that there's going to be some kind >of widespread opposition movement when the big Net Crackdown comes. Most >people will either obey the law, be unaffected by it, or violate it in very >insignificant ways ("net jaywalking"). When printing was introduced in the west, the big print crackdown was successful, but there was great resistance, and the crackdown on the printed word required great and continuing violence over a long period, and was never entirely effective. A net crackdown will be substantially less effective than the print crackdown was, and the level of violence is likely to be greater. There is of course a tradeoff: An highly ineffectual net crackdown will not provoke large scale resistance. They can probably force the stuff on alt.pictures.erotica.children to be published in a more discreet manner. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | We have the right to defend ourselves | http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ and our property, because of the kind | of animals that we are. True law | James A. Donald derives from this right, not from the | arbitrary power of the state. | jamesd(a)echeque.com

1 0

Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers (fwd)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 01:47 PM 1/2/96 -0600, you wrote: > >Forwarded message: > >> Date: Tue, 2 Jan 1996 18:43:31 +0000 (GMT) >> From: "Mark Grant, M.A. (Oxon)" <mark(a)unicorn.com> >> Subject: Re: Guerilla Internet Service Providers >> >> About ten years ago a group I was involved with were thinking about >> putting something into space as a publicity stunt. One company we talked >> to claimed they could put 1 kg into orbit on one of their sounding rockets >> for about $ 30,000 (that's a 1 kg satellite, not $ 30,000 per kg). How >> small can you build a "data haven" satellite ? >> >> Looking a few years into the future, you could probably stick a >> stripped-down Linux laptop with solar cells and a stripped-down satellite >> telephone as a Net link on top of a slightly larger rocket and charge for >> on-orbit storage using ecash... Using remailers it should be pretty-much >> untraceable. >> > >Actualy, both the Pacific Coast Rocketry group and the Experimental >Spacecraft Association are working on putting the first amateur payload in >LEO. ESA wants to put a telescope with real-time downlink up as their >payload. PCR wants to put some kind of transponder up. > >Under current technology a group of about 30 dedicated amateurs (with >suitable skills) could put a 25kg payload in orbit for under 1/4 million. >It would consist of surplus and amateur built equipment. > >Tripolli puts out a magazine called High Performance Rocketry which you may >be able to find at your local newstand (in Austin you get it at the Central >Market Bookstop). It usually carries at least a couple of adds for material >that PCR and a couple of smaller groups are putting out to help fund their >project. I would say it will be less than 3 years before this dream occurs >unless the DOT (the people who regulate all space shots now) decides not to >give them a permit. As I understand the physics, the whole process could be made FAR FAR FAR more efficient if the rocket was boosted to about 40000 feet with a subsonic airplane, a' la' X-15 and such. It's above 75% of the earth's atmosphere (dramatically reduced drag), is already going 600 mph in the correct direction, and is 8 miles closer to the ultimate goal 250 miles up). This might not sound like much of an advantage, but if you've ever worked out the mathematics of the Saturn V (or space shuttle, etc), the VAST majority of the fuel was used up in the first 20,000 feet, maybe even the first 5000 feet. It would be even better if the first stage could be an air-breathing supersonic ramjet, but that's not my field of expertise. In addition, the existence of relatively low-cost GPS receivers would make achieving an accurate orbit vastly cheaper than with the inertial guidance systems historically used. Sure, cheap accelerometers are being sold by Analog Devices and Murata Erie sells cheap vibrational gyros (not to mention fiber gyros) but it would be hard to beat the accuracy you could get with GPS.

2 1