- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: NOISE: Scriveners Attack C-Punks
by Nibiru 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Watch out folks... the scriveners are after us! No doubt in cahoots with teh exonites! Take this dweeb ** BONK ** .

1 0

RE: Crypto as contraband
by jtatz＠chemistry.ohio-state.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> The morons in congress responded to intercepts of cellphones. Because > Newt was scanned. Response: outlaw *cellphones*... which are > themselves typically programmable as scanners of cell freqs. > And scanners > and programmable RF receivers. The ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) banned cell phone scanning, as of 1994 I believe. When Newt was monitored, that was nothing really new. Ch 83, (890-986?) is cell, however Federal law (Title 18, Chapter 119) makes cell monitoring illegal only if it INTENTIONAL. And owning and buying cell-phone capable devices is LEGAL. The only catch is who is selling it, it is my understanding you can sell a cell scanner used without a prob. I currently own a cell-capable scanner. ~Jim ------------------------------------------ A great man named Ben Tersian once said "Avoid the cliche 'Information must be free'" "Find it learn it embrace it and set it free."

1 0

[WAREZ] Mr. Hankey claims squatter's rights
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* The show business newspaper Daily Variety reported in December that John Kricfalusi, creator TV's "The Ren & Stimpy Show," was threatening legal action against the producers of the Comedy Central show "South Park" for ripping off a cartoon character. According to Kricfalusi, his character "Nutty the Friendly Dump," an animated piece of excrement, must have been the basis for "South Park"'s "Mr. Hankey the Christmas Poo," a holiday-dressed, singing, dancing piece of excrement. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ WEIRDNUZ.520 (News of the Weird, January 23, 1998) by Chuck Shepherd NEWS OF THE WEIRD, founded in 1988, is a nationally syndicated newspaper column distributed by Universal Press Syndicate. To receive the columns by e-mail, free of charge, send a message to notw-request(a)nine.org with the Subject line of Subscribe. To read these News of the Weird newspaper columns from the past six months, go to http://www.nine.org/notw/notw.html (That site contains no graphics, no photos, no video clips, no audio. Just text. Deal with it.)

1 0

D.C.'s Sister City?
by Tim May 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* According to a report in the Washington Post in November, armed robbers in the large Nigerian trading city of Onitsha are so bold, and the police so outmanned, that they often notify the victims in advance that they will be coming to rob them, to encourage the residents to be away from the house at the time. A few days after the police announced a crackdown, one gang of 50 armed robbers cordoned off a street and looted every apartment building on the block. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ WEIRDNUZ.520 (News of the Weird, January 23, 1998) by Chuck Shepherd NEWS OF THE WEIRD, founded in 1988, is a nationally syndicated newspaper column distributed by Universal Press Syndicate. To receive the columns by e-mail, free of charge, send a message to notw-request(a)nine.org with the Subject line of Subscribe. To read these News of the Weird newspaper columns from the past six months, go to http://www.nine.org/notw/notw.html (That site contains no graphics, no photos, no video clips, no audio. Just text. Deal with it.)

1 0

CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM - September 15, 1998
by CTIA Daily News 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

========================================== Welcome to today's edition of the CTIA Daily News from WOW-COM. Please click on the icon / attachment for the most important news in wireless communications today. The Newest Most Comprehensive Tradeshow of Wireless Computing and Communications is Only a Month Away. Register TODAY! http://www.wirelessit.com/register.htm Team WOW-COM wowcom(a)ctia.org ===========================================

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:47 3/27/96, Michael Froomkin wrote: >I see no reason whatsoever to believe that an un-warranted wiretap would >be legal in any but two cases. (1) Emergency threatening life (e.g. >hostage-taking) pending judicial authorizaiton -- very rare. >(2) The president claims residual authority to wiretap on national >security grounds without a court order. Since the FISA court provides >the authority, this (one is told) is not used. On what do you base your belief, give that the law explicitly allows for "other forms of authorization"? Where does it say that these "other forms of authorization" are limited to the examples you give? TIA, -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

1 0

ANNOUNCE: remail@extropia moves
by Miron 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello, My remailer moved from: remail(a)extropia.wimsey.com to: remail(a)miron.vip.best.com Please adjust your pointers accordingly. Mail through extropia should be forwarded for the next few days. There is no change to the encryption key. Miron

1 0

Re: So, what crypto legislation (if any) is necessary?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:49 AM 3/29/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote: >On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote: > >> Escrowing encrypted keys makes them useless to subpoena, and in >> fact it helps the key owner because the escrow agent can (and, in fact, >> must!) be obligated to inform the key owner if his key is requested. > >I thought I would take the time to let everyone know that this is >baseless as well. Most jurisdictions forbid third parties to reveal >prosecution inquries to the principal for which they are holding >documents or other information. A VERY few have laws on the books that >require this disclosure. Switzerland is no longer one of them. As usual, Unicorn is FOS. Not entirely in his facts, but in his conclusions. To "forbit third parties to reveal prosecution inquiries" is an obvious violation of freedom of speech, and in fact is PRIOR RESTRAINT. Maybe Unicorn can't see what's wrong with that, but I can. It is unclear whether this has ever been tested in court, or whether that test occurred recently. Now, in practice I recognize that in the past large organizations which are subpoenaed usually comply with requests to keep an inquiry secret, but one of the effects of the "crypto revolution" and the "net revolution" is clearly to decentralize information power from the places it used to be carefully kept (IBM, ATT, etc) and is now distributing it among many more, far smaller organizations which are much closer to the people the prosecutors might be inclined to target. (for example, your friendly neighborhood ISP). Furthermore, the development of good encryption will allow a willing ISP (for example) to send an encrypted (and possibly semi-anonymous) message to the target of the investigation (or possibly a public USENET area, unaddressed), containing a pre-arranged alarm code to be sent to the target of the investigation, in such a way that any other people (for example, the brainless cops) won't know. The target will be assured (though encryption and signing, or prior arrangement) that the message could only have originated from the contractor (ISP) but the target (and nobody else, as well) will not be able to prove this knowledge to a third party. For example, if I ask my ISP to send me an anonymous, encrypted message with the word, "Rosebud" in it to me if he receives any requests to tap my connection, he can do so with no fear of being discovered, because no third party can decrypt the message, know who is is from, or know the real meaning of the word, "Rosebud" in the context of an encrypted, anonymized message. Further, since the whole thing is by pre-arrangement, even I cannot prove (to the satisfaction of a third party) that the message really meant what I would interpret it to mean. The message is useful to me, as a warning, but it could never turn around and "bite" the ISP. The end result is that your foolish opinion of what the law allows will simply become irrelevant: The government cannot mandate what it cannot enforce, and it cannot enforce what it cannot detect. You may ask, "Why would the operator of a small ISP want to take even a minor risk informing the target of the investigation?" There are a number of obvious answers: 1. He's promised his customer to do so. 2. It's in the contract. 3. And the ever-popular, "He's afraid of getting killed, or his ISP business torched, if word later leaks out that he failed to inform his customer of an investigation." Don't underestimate the significance of such a risk to those people. Destruction of even a full phone switch would not have fazed ATT in the 1960's, but a small ISP depends on valuable equipment at (presumably) a single location. Getting a person mad at them for failing to anonymously inform them of an inquiry would NOT be the best tactic for these small-time operators. >Even if a judge was convinced by the defense not to levy heavy fines >against a third party who pleaded that he or she was simply unable to >comply, informing the principal would literally assure such fines would >be imposed regardless. Again, you assume that informing "the principal" would be detectable. Your wishful thinking is palpable. I really wish you'd be able to distinguish what "the law" could do, given limitless knowledge of the actions of the population, and the REAL WORLD, in which those judges and prosecutors and cops are limited in what they can do by what they can know. This is critical, because we are rapidly approaching a time in which what these people know will be dramatically limited by many of the technologies regularly discussed on Cypherpunks. >Criminal charges of obstruction could easily attach. Bullets could easily fly. You repeatedly state what might, hypothetically, happen, but you don't back it up with a realistic assessment of what actually would _likely_ happen. > Obstruction in connection with narcotics cases or other major >felonies are generally extraditable offenses as well. Someday, obstruction of the Constitution by government agents will be a death-penalty crime. >Once again Mr. Bell pulls legal analysis out of his rectum rather than >basing it in fact or research. > >With Mr. Bell as a defense attorney, who needs prosecutors? If I intended to limit myself to the tools of the court room (that's the enemy's playpen, BTW) I would probably be just as ineffective as the next defense attorney. I've frequently found that the question of who wins in any confrontation is strongly affected by whether I allow myself to be lured into the home territory of the other. This is actually more a psychological battle than a physical one. You obviously believe that the cops and judges can frequently win, if they are able to control the location of the battle; this is true, but it ignores the fact that "the legal system" is generally an 8-hour-per-day, 40-hour-per week system. Going outside the system and attacking directly bypasses all the rules and restrictions which are set up to allow THEM to win. This may sound unfair to people brainwashed to believe that the court system is and should be the final arbiter, but I suggest that long ago they lost whatever moral authority they once might have had. Every time you talk about them fining or prosecuting some third party for not cooperating, you demolish your own claims. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

Netscape 2.01 fixes server vulnerabilities by breaking the client...
by Rich Graves 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Now I suppose they'll want me to fix all the pages where I do a finger with a gopher://host:79/0user. Any chance this nonfix can be unfixed? This nonfix was applied to the UNIX and Win32 versions; I haven't checked the other platforms. -rich >From http://home.netscape.com/eng/mozilla/2.01/relnotes/unix-2.01.html >go to the security stuff and find: > > * Relating to Ports: > > 2.01 fixes a problem where it was possible for a Gopher URL to be > used to send commands to ports other than those that were > reasonable for the Gopher service. It was possible that this > feature could be used to exploit other security vulnerabilities > behind firewalls. Navigator 2.01 fixes this problem by limiting > the ports that a Gopher URL can access and by disallowing certain > control characters in a valid Gopher URL.

3 4

The Revolution is NOW! (Think about it, Gertrude...over a Stein of beer, perhaps?)
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

* What Goes Around, Comes Around: Since taking control of most of Afghanistan in September 1996, the religious Taliban army has enforced strict, conservative Islamic rule, especially regarding the work, recreation, and dress of women. Now, according to a report in the London Daily Telegraph in November, a splinter Muslim group about 200 miles north of Kabul has begun to train a women-only battalion to fight the Taliban. Females from the Hazaras, a Turkic Mongol ethnic group, have been training at a secret location and will soon begin a major recruiting campaign. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ WEIRDNUZ.520 (News of the Weird, January 23, 1998) by Chuck Shepherd NEWS OF THE WEIRD, founded in 1988, is a nationally syndicated newspaper column distributed by Universal Press Syndicate. To receive the columns by e-mail, free of charge, send a message to notw-request(a)nine.org with the Subject line of Subscribe. To read these News of the Weird newspaper columns from the past six months, go to http://www.nine.org/notw/notw.html (That site contains no graphics, no photos, no video clips, no audio. Just text. Deal with it.)

1 0