- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re:LACC: PC Phones Home?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:41 PM 3/13/96 -0800, Jim McCoy wrote: >Dennis Hilliard writes: >> >>"Software to the rescue: >>If somoeone steals your PC, you may be able to get it back because of >>software that acts as a kind of tracking device. Home Office Computing >>magazine reports that the software CompuTrace TRS will automatically dial >>the office of its creator, Absolute Software, if a thief hooks up a stolen >>PC's modem to a phone line. The software reveals the location of the PC and >>Absolute Software will call the police" - Providence Journal-Bulletin - >>March 12, 1996. >1- How does the PC know where it is? >2- How does the PC know it has been stolen? > >Since this is a software product I am assuming that the answer to #1 >is the use of CallerID on the line when the software calls, which is >defeated by the use of line blocking by the thief. I think that 1-800 services provide caller ID information to the company or organization that pays for the service. Whether or not this is blocked by standard caller-ID I don't know. Nevertheless, like you, I am not impressed with the likelihood of success of this system. > The obvious answer >to #2 seems to me to have the system call the CompuTrace office at >odd intervals to see if it has been reported stolen yet... One thing that might be useful would be a OTP (one-time programmable) EPROM chip installed on all major system components (monitor, HD, motherboard, CDROM drive, maybe even DRAM SIMMs). It would be a serial device for low cost, such as a 3-pin TO-92 chip, which would have a capacity of about 4k bits, enough to store a hash of the owner-history (at about 100 bits per owner) for any owner that decided to leave a record. Like an EPROM, bits could only be written once; the chip itself would prevent write-overs previous to the last-written bit. Subsequent owners could read the history and publish the hash codes; anyone looking for such a stolen product could have their losses checked automatically, and perhaps semi-anonymously or anonymously, by a service set up to do this. Innocent owners could be adequately compensated for finding a piece of stolen hardware, to the extent that nobody is deterred about reporting a find. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Re: Kid Gloves or Megaphones
by Hal 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: eric(a)remailer.net (Eric Hughes) > The situation is thus. Ian Goldberg et al. have developed a protocol > for simultaneous payer and payee anonymity. It appears to be novel, > albeit not entirely unanticipated. The protocol works with the > existing bank signing oracle and could interoperate with Mark Twain's > current system. > [...] > It is foolishness itself to deceive a public which is substantially in > favor of the program of complete privacy. We must appeal to the > public that finally will decide, not to some officials today who have > power and tomorrow who will not. Clipper itself was not defeated by > constructive engagement with the Clinton wiretap administration. > Clipper was defeated by a general call to arms. > > Therefore, shout out to the world that payee anonymity is possible with > ecash(TM)! As is well known, Chaum has been saying that one of the good features of ecash (from the point of view of regulators and law enforcement) is that payee anonymity is not supposed to be possible. This means that if someone sets up a shop to sell something illegally, they can be caught. (I suspect that is at least part of the reason why you have to fill out a multi page form to open an ecash account, so they have enough information to arrest you if you break the law.) It also means that various kinds of crimes would be prevented as well, such as theft of funds or extortion. Imagine that someone starts lobbing mailbombs at the cypherpunks list, and demands a payment of $1 a week from each subscriber to keep him from doing it, said payments to be posted to some newsgroup encrypted with a specified PGP key. Right now he could be caught when he tries to deposit his ill-gotten riches. But with payee anonymity that could be avoided. As a remailer operator I unfortunately see more of the seamy side of anonymity than most people. I do think there are people who will take advantage of this technology in harmful ways. So payee anonymity will certainly make life more interesting. However, Mark Twain Bank presumably went into this business with the expectation that they were providing a non-payee-anonymous payment system. They have already shut down at least a couple of merchants who were selling materials not to MTB's taste. So if they find out that they are now providing the perfect payment system for criminals, I would not be surprised to see them suspend the ecash trial and demand that Chaum redesign the system to truly make it non-anonymous for payees, if that is possible. So while I admire Eric's ethical concern about making relevant information about the properties of ecash available, it is also important to understand the possible outcome. One thing I notice that was missing from Eric's posting was a description or reference to exactly how the payee anonymity is achieved. Is it his intention to tell people that it is possible, yet to keep secret how it is done? This way there might be a debate about the desirability of full anonymity, while not actually putting these tools into the hands of those who would misuse them. And it might lessen the chance of precipitate action by MTB and other ecash issuers. But on the other hand it's not clear that keeping it secret is possible or desirable. A full discussion of the issue will require understanding of technical aspects. How effective is the payee anonymity? How about a timing/amount coincidence attack, where payments of X dollars to anonymous person A are always followed a few moments later by deposits of X dollars to account B? Does the payee need to trust a "broker" who serves as an intermediary with the bank? Is there any way the bank can distinguish a payee-anonymous deposit from a normal one, and are there any countermeasures the bank could take to prevent payee anonymity? These questions would seem to require understanding of how the scheme works. Also, there were a number of postings a few months ago by people who had ideas about how payee anonymity could be done. They mostly had drawbacks and may not be as nice as what Ian has come up with, but could perhaps serve as a starting point for re-creating something similar to Ian's ideas. So keeping it secret may not be a practical possibility. Hal

2 1

SCHWA - New Web Search Engine!!
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Something of interest... >X-Www-Page: http://www.fringeware.com/MSG/index.html#digest >Keywords: pleashes heorg horizona disabili freques inspecurs >Subject: SCHWA - New Web Search Engine!! >Reply-To: Troy.Sheets(a)Eng.Sun.COM (Troy Sheets) >Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 09:47:27 -0800 >Apparently-To: fwlist-daily(a)fringeware.com >X-UIDL: 70f914736d382f472d2b9d22d8a07327 > >Sent from: Troy.Sheets(a)Eng.Sun.COM (Troy Sheets) > >The Schwa Corperation, Global Media and Infomation Services is proud >to present "Intrude", the search engine for the next century. Intrude >is working 24 hours a day, sucking infomation and carefully indexing >data from all four corners of the global infosphere. Sure, other >search engines scan Usenet and mailing list archeives... but Intrude >goes even further. Using the powerful parallel-processing supercomputer, >"Pal 4000" (courtesy of Schwa Microsystems Computer Corperation), Intrude >reads credit ratings, cable TV viewing habits, mail-order products received, >videos rented, parking tickets received, and of course, every single >peice of email transmitted over the Internet. Tired of those pesky >PGP messages? They are no match for Pal's Reverse Escrow Orthoganal >decryption software. > >But don't feel bad about knowing that everything you ever said online >is now available to any crazy with a 14.4, all search querries on Intrude >are logged also... so you can always Intrude the person Intruding on you. > >Try Intrude today, and see what juice facts it pulls up. You might learn >things about yourself you never knew! > >"The Schwa Corperation, making information work harder... and harder >infomation to work... or working infomation hard" > >-Troy Sheets, VP of Marketing, GMIS. > >http://www-scf.usc.edu/~tsheets > > --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon

2 1

Euro-Telecoms Standards gives access to GSM & other specs
by Adam Back 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Someone pointed out this information to me. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) have granted access to allow everyone, not just members, to their specifications. These include the GSM specs. Start here: http://webapp.etsi.org/publicationssearch/ Adam

1 0

CONGRESS: Online Parental Control Act of 1996
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Date: Thu, 14 Mar 1996 14:21:53 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk From: telstar(a)wired.com (--Todd Lappin-->) To: Multiple recipients of list <cda96-l(a)willamette.edu> Subject: CONGRESS: Online Parental Control Act of 1996 Today in the House of Representatives, legislation was introduced to encourage parental empowerment on the Internet and eliminate the vague and overbroad "indecency" standard that became law under the Communications Decency Act. The new legislation, called the "Online Parental Control Act of 1996," was introduced by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), whose district includes much of California's Silicon Valley. Representatives Pelosi (D-CA), Dellums (D-CA), Farr (D-CA), Gejdenson (D-CT), and Woolsey (D-CA) are co-sponsors of the bill. (The full text of Rep. Eschoo's press release on the new legislation follows below.) The Online Parental Control Act of 1996 seeks to replace the "indecency" standard (which is mainly used to regulate speech in BROADCAST media) with the more narrowly-drawn "harmful to minors" standard which has already been upheld as constitutional in 48 states. My understanding is that "harmful to minors" is a PRINT-based standard, but I'll research this and send out a more detailed evaluation as soon as possible. In the meantime, I can say this: "harmful to minors" is viewed as a middle-of-the-road standard, and as such, it remains *highly* controversial. There are many who would argue that *any* attempt to restrict access to content other than obscenity (which does not enjoy First Amendment protection) is unwarranted. Stay tuned. All of this, by the way, comes on the heels of a bill (S 1567) Patrick Leahy introduced in the United States Senate last month in an effort to repeal the Communications Decency Act altogether. Spread the word! --Todd Lappin--> Section Editor WIRED Magazine ============================================================ FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Lewis Roth CONTACT: (202) 225-8104 March 14, 1996 Eshoo Introduces Online Parental Control Act Legislation Strengthens Parental Control Of Online Materials, Eliminates "Indecency" Standard Washington, D.C.--Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) today introduced the Online Parental Control Act of 1996 (OPCA) to strengthen the control parents have over their children's access to online materials, eliminate the "indecency" standard from the Communications Act of 1934, and provide additional defenses against liability for publishing online materials. Representatives Pelosi (D-CA), Dellums (D-CA), Farr (D-CA), Gejdenson (D-CT), and Woolsey (D-CA) are original cosponsors of OPCA. When the Telecommunications Reform Bill was signed into law earlier this year, it made sweeping changes to America's telecommunications policy. Among those changes was the establishment of a ban on using telecommunications devices to provide "indecent" materials to minors, as well as defenses against being held liable for a violation of that ban. For example, people could avoid liability by using software that blocks the access of minors to such materials or restricts access through the use of credit card numbers or adult access codes. Some U.S. Representatives, including Rep. Eshoo, opposed the "indecency" standard because the range of material it would ban was so broad that it violates the right to freedom of speech. The "indecency" standard is currently being challenged in court by a large coalition of free speech advocacy groups and high technology companies. "The Online Parental Control Act will encourage an open dialogue in Congress about the best way to both give parents control over what their children see online and protect the First Amendment rights of Internet users," said Rep. Eshoo. "My proposal builds on last year's efforts to reach a compromise on this issue by offering more incentives for the online community to provide families with better parental control technologies. "I'm supportive of efforts to address this issue in the courts, but I believe Congress also needs to offer a legislative solution. Given the political realities of the current Congress, I think OPCA offers the most realistic way to settle this dispute in a timely and effective manner." The Online Parental Control Act of 1996: Replaces the "indecency" standard with a "harmful to minors" standard; Establishes a definition for "harmful to minors;" Maintains the Communications Act of 1934's legal defenses against liability for people who choose to give parents technology that: 1) blocks or restricts access to online materials deemed obscene or harmful to minors, and 2) restricts access to such materials through adult access codes or credit card numbers; Adds two new defenses: 1) the use of labeling or segregating systems to restrict access to online materials, such as systems developed using the standards designed by the Platform for Internet Content Selection project (PICS), and 2) the use of other systems that serve the same function of the other defenses if they are as reasonable, effective, and appropriate as blocking, adult access code, and labeling technologies; and Protects providers or users of interactive computer services, information content providers, and access software providers from civil or criminal liability under state law for making available to minors materials that are indecent or harmful to minors if they take actions to qualify for the defenses mentioned above. "I'd rather have Mom and Dad monitoring their children's online viewing habits than the government," concluded Rep. Eshoo. "Technology offers the best opportunity for parents to manage what their kids have access to, and the Online Parental Control Act encourages those technologies to be developed more fully." The "indecency" standard is a vague term that has been subject to legal challenge by a wide range of free speech advocates and high technology companies. The broad nature of the "indecency" standard means that it could lead to a prohibition on material such as classic art like Michelangelo's David, classic literature like "Catcher In The Rye," and frank discussions about birth control, sexuality, or disease transmission. "Harmful to minors," on the other hand, already works successfully in 48 states, more directly addresses speech that actually harms children, and passes constitutional muster. PICS is a cross-industry working group assembled under the auspices of MIT's World Wide Web Consortium to develop an easy-to-use content labeling and selection platform that empowers people worldwide to selectively control online content they receive through personal computers. The Recreational Software Advisory Council recently announced that it will soon implement a detailed voluntary ratings system, using PICS standards, that will let computer users filter out varying degrees of sex, violence, nudity, and foul language. Companies and groups supporting PICS include Apple, America Online, AT&T, the Center for Democracy and Technology, CompuServe, IBM, France Telecom, Prodigy, Providence Systems/Parental Guidance, Surf Watch Software, and Time Warner Pathfinder. For more information about the Online Parental Control Act of 1996, please contact Lewis Roth at (202) 225-8104 or look on the Internet at http://www-eshoo.house.gov/opca.html. ### +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+- This transmission was brought to you by.... THE CDA INFORMATION NETWORK The CDA Information Network is a moderated mailing list providing up-to-the-minute bulletins and background on efforts to overturn the Communications Decency Act. To subscribe, send email to <majordomo(a)wired.com> with "subscribe cda-bulletin" in the message body. WARNING: This is not a test! WARNING: This is not a drill! +--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-

1 0

Interesting Egghead freebee
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

While at Egghead today, I found out that they are giving away copies of Spry Mosaic in a Box. (You have to buy something, but that was why I was there anyways...) So far, it seems to be worth about what you pay for it. It is designed to connect you to Compu$lave. What has this to do with this list you ask? The product actually claims to support S-HTTP! (No export warnings on the package and no real info as to how it is implemented... I suspect brand-name snake oil here.) For those of you who do web development and are interested in a client that actually supports S-Http (I do not believe the d/lable version does), take a look. (It does install alot of crap, like a new Winsock, so be warned.) --- Alan Olsen -- alano(a)teleport.com -- Contract Web Design & Instruction `finger -l alano(a)teleport.com` for PGP 2.6.2 key http://www.teleport.com/~alano/ "We had to destroy the Internet in order to save it." - Sen. Exon

1 0

RTFM & such
by JonWienke＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

In a message dated 96-03-15 03:14:52 EST, you write: >At 07:30 PM 3/14/96 -0500, Yawn82(a)aol.com wrote: >>How the hell do I get off this list? > >You can check out any time you want, but you can never leave. > > I seem to recall getting a message explaining how to do this when I subscribed. Jonathan Wienke "Let's flame these bozos! They're too stupid to live!" --Dr. Ziploc

1 0

(Humor) FW: How to Win Arguments
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<<forwards deleted>> I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules: * Drink Liquor. Suppose you're at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you're drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthralls your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have STRONG VIEWS about the Peruvian economy. You'll be a WEALTH of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insights and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room. * Make things up. Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that YOU are underpaid, and you're damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. DON'T say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say: "The average Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 before the mean gross poverty level." NOTE: Always make up exact figures. If an opponent asks you where you got your information, make THAT up, too. Say: "This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the same tone of voice you would use to say "You left your soiled underwear in my bath house." * Use meaningless but weightly-sounding words and phrases. Memorize this list: Let me put it this way In terms of Vis-a-vis Per se As it were Qua So to speak You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations such as "Q.E.D.," "e.g.," and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you do not." Here's how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win arguments talking like that. But you WILL win if you say: "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians qua Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se, as it were. Q.E.D." Only a fool would challenge that statement. * Use snappy and irrelevant comebacks. You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevent phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are: You're begging the question. You're being defensive. Don't compare apples and oranges. What are your parameters? This last one is especially valuable. Nobody, other than mathematicians, has the vaguest idea what "parameters" means. Here's how to use your comebacks: You say As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873... Your opponents says Lincoln died in 1865. You say Your begging the question. OR You say Liberians, like most Asians... Your opponents says Liberia is in Africa. You say You're being defensive. * Compare your opponent to Adolf Hitler. This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say" or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler." So that's it: you now know how to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons. ------------------------------------------- End Forwarded Article .. ~ Blanc

1 0

Re: ADL_mil
by tj_lists＠prado.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Addressed to: John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> <cypherpunks(a)toad.com> ** Reply to note from John Young <jya(a)pipeline.com> 03/10/96 5:15pm -0500 > The ADL survey also found that many hard-core > militiamen believe that the United States Government > itself conducted the Oklahoma City bombing to create an > excuse for further depriving citizens of their > constitutional rights. One doesn't need to be a "hard-core militia" type to realize the demolition of the Murrah Bldg. wasn't caused by a truck full of ANFO 20 feet away. The alleged method used, 20 seperate plastic drums of the stuff is the absolutely WRONG way to get a coherent explosion of ANFO which needs concentration, not air space between the containers. Further more, a truck bomb would create a circular blast pattern, not the linear left to right pattern seen & caused by shape charges planted on the structural columns inside the building. Brig. General USAF (Ret.) Ben Partin, who designed & tested bombs while in the Air Force wrote in a letter to various Congressmen, "I can say, with a high level of confidence, that the damage pattern on the reinforced concrete superstructure could not possibly have been attained from the single truck bomb without supplementing demolition charges at some of the reinforced column bases. The total incompatibility with a single truck bomb lies in the fact that either some of the columns collapsed that should not have collapsed or some of the columns are still standing that should have collapsed and did not." According to Charles Mankin, head of the Geologic Survey at the University of Oklahoma, referring to seismograph records of April 19, 1995 "We had two events, ten seconds apart. The first one coincided in time with the explosion at the Federal Building." A truck bomb did explode outside of the Fed Bldg as a cover & distraction for the real demolition job inside. McVeigh is a dupe, a fall guy, about on par with Lee H. Oswald in Dallas, November 23, 1963. The benefits to the statist monstrosity & it's quasi-official allies like the ADL of the deaths of 168 people have been enormous. This in itself does not prove government agencies are responsible for the bombing, but combined with the simple fact that the damage could not possibly have occured the way they are claiming it did, it adds up to certainty as to whom the real bombers are. Qui bono?

1 0

Re: Why escrow? (was Re: How would Leahy bill affect crypto
by Yawn82＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

How the hell do I get off this list?

1 0