- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

OPS_nuk
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The WSJ Page Ones a loser's game about the CIA's role in promoting Japanese pachinko cards to halt the surreptitious funneling of betting cash to the construction of a North Korean nuclear plant. And the op's nuking by the Kobe quake looting of card-reading mechanisms, cracking encryption codes, and counterfeiting not-so-smart cards for counter- tipping the house fix. Mondex, watcher bleedin arse. ----- http://jya.com/opsnuk.txt OPS_nuk

1 0

Re: Digital Watermarks for copy protection in recent Billbo
by Alex F 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> >Yes, but concievably if (whoever would be incharge, FBI?) *could*, > >under law do this, even if they are wrong. It is a lot harder to > >prove that they intentionally harrassed *you* than it is for them to > >say that they were following leads and show evidence. Yes, this may > > To go to trial, an indictment would be needed. How likely is this? The likelyness is irrelevant to the point. Possibility is relevant. Probability is not. > Discussion of "in theory they could arrest you" points often neglects the > realities of the legal system. Does that really matter? . In REALITY, it will never be enforced. So what? The potential is still there, and in essence, that is ALL that matters! The discussion of "in theory...." doesn't neglect the realities of the legal system, rather it highlights the POTENTIAL for abuse. Even if the law is never enforced, could it not be used as an example to justify other laws that *may* be introduced? Does it not set a dangerous precedent? We are talking about dangerous empowerment here. Hmm. The arguement "well, we would never REALLY enforce it" just doesn't hold water with me, and makes me uncomfortable. > A large fraction of pawnshop items have questionable provenance, the items > having been stolen at some time in the past. Could J. Random Buyer who > walks in, sees an item he likes, buys it, and walks out with it be > handcuffed and taken down the lockup for the crime of buying stolen > property? Doubtful, in the real world. And defense would be ridicuously > easy. A defense would be easy, fine. But it would still cost $$$. Do you see what I am getting at? This is done ALL THE TIME (no, not at pawn brokers. I'm talking about taking advantage of either cost or time to get what you want). > A trivial increase in frequency, and still not allowing the hypothesized 30 > KHz signal to be added. DATs often sample at 44 and 48 KHz, switchably. The > CD standard is of course still what it is. That's not the point. What we are talking about here is a covert channel. Whether it is at 30KHZ, 22KHz or right in the middle of the audible range. Mine was ONE proposal, a theory of sorts, thought up off of the top of my head as a possible way of doing this. You can also add a digital serial number right in the audible range, if you like. Static that is recorded along with analog sound is at certain frequency ranges, typically. When you have a disk that holds 640Mb or so the serial number's size is trivial in comparison. Sending the whole number at once will barely be audible even if in a good frequency range simply because of speed. If you send it in bits and pieces during the song, and furthermore record this data in the middle of the frequency range where static is located, you won't hear it anyway. However certain devices will be able to read the data w/o problem. Similarly, you have a CD, let's say Beethoven's 9th symphony. You have ~640 MB on the CD. If you want to sneak someone an encrypted message, say a top secret document and it is compressed down to 1K, then putting this into the audio signal as described above is fairly trivial. The other end doesn't even need to know bit counts. The document can be spreadout, reversed, whatever and just signaled w/ a flag (much like PPP and other protocols). All the other end needs to decode is a flag at a set frequency range, both of which can be constantly changed. interestingly, Alex F =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Alex F alexf(a)iss.net Marketing Specialist Internet Security Systems =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

1 0

Re: Digital Watermarks (long, getting off-topic)
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:14 PM 7/24/96 +0200, Gary Howland wrote: >Timothy C. May wrote: > >> Pre-recorded DAT tapes were available for a while...they did not sell. I >> believe this was because DAT machine purchasers were sophisticated and new >> how to make CD-to-DAT copies, with or without SCMS. > >Don't forget that pre-recorded DAT tapes are at least an order of >magnitude more expensive to manufacture than CDs. Isn't it odd that when music is sold, CD's are MORE expensive than cassette tapes, even though you _know_ that the manufacturing cost of CD's is less? Another oddity: The price for a blank, standard-quality videocassette is about the same as that of a blank, standard-quality audio cassette tape, despite the fact that the volume of tape included in the former is probably about a factor of 10 higher. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

2 1

FTP Software Licenses Pretty Good Privacy 07/23/96
by reagle＠rpcp.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

HAMBURG, GERMANY, 1996 JUL 23 (NB) -- By Sylvia Dennis. FTP Software, the Internet/connectivity software company, has licensed Pretty Good Privacy's encryption technology of the same name (PGP). Plans now call for FTP to integrate PGP within its range of TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) software. Under the terms of the agreement, PGP has licensed its encryption software to FTP for use in OnNet32 2.0 for Windows 95 and Windows NT, both versions of which will ship in the third quarter of this year on both sides of the Atlantic. Tom Steding, PGP's chief executive officer, said that a critical piece of the company's business strategy is to proliferate the "seamless integration of encryption technology" within e-mail applications programs. "We see this partnership as a powerful combination of two leaders who, together, will use their considerable market weight and technical expertise to promote and enhance the PGP towards becoming a universally accepted industry standard," he said. According to Rebecca Buisan, product marketing manager with FTP, the company has made several enhancements to OnNet32 to integrate PGP into its basic functions. There is now a two icon system which allows users to access a tool bar, designating options to encrypt or decrypt a message, and make a digital signature. Mail messages can also be left on a server or computer in an encrypted format, to be decrypted and read at will. "Experience has proven that cryptography only works if implemented effectively, so that it is simple for the user," she explained. According to Buisan, FTP has conducted extensive human factors testing to fine-tune PGP's cryptographic software into a "flexible and intuitive application that people will be encouraged to use." According to FTP, its implementation of the PGP encryption software is interoperable with current freeware versions available for free download from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) or one of the many other FTP (File Transfer Protocol) sites that distribute the package. The MIT site is at http://web.mit.edu/pgp . PGP was originally developed in 1991 by Phil Zimmerman. The package allowed PC users, for the first time, to send information in a secure encrypted format without fear of intervention. FTP's Web site is at http://www.ftp.com . (19960722/Press & Reader Contact: Manuela Dorken, FTP Software, +49-89-614130, Internet e-mail manuela(a)ftp.com; PGP, 415-631-1747, Internet e-mail info(a)viacrypt.com)

3 2

Re: NSA Lawyers Believe ITARs Would be Overturned if Tested in Court
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 21:32 21/07/96 -0800, jim bell wrote: > Why aren't they (still) restricting >PC-type computers for export? Because, I imagine, it did not stop the clones from Taiwan, but severely hurt US computer manufacturers. Ultimately, this is the argument that will bring the US government kicking and screaming to its senses on the cryptography issue. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0

Would Netscape take money for 'exported' copies?
by Arun Mehta 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 22:13 23/07/96 -0400, Anonymous Remail Service wrote: >As I have said before, European & other foreign users, who get the strong- >crypto version should pay Netscape what they owe Netscape, to keep the ITAR >as the issue, and not piracy. Yes, but could/would Netscape even take our money? Wouldn't that be complicity (IA obviously NAL)? I'd imagine they'd just return the money, and tell us to please destroy our copies of the software. Arun Mehta Phone +91-11-6841172, 6849103 amehta(a)cpsr.org http://www.cerfnet.com/~amehta/ finger amehta(a)cerfnet.com for public key

1 0

Re: Parsing John Youn (Re: OPS_nuk)
by jya＠pipeline.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

On Jul 25, 1996 03:46:19, 'tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May)' wrote: >P.S. John Young does an invaluable service in forwarding items and making them >available at his site, but I find parsing his text into something >understandable a real chore. Too bad when style gets in the way of substance, >unless, of course, ones aspires to Joycehood. Tim, pity the moot transcriber a-choring (spit). It's a grind (pus) forwarding other's fishwrap (buggers), hardly able to contain one's gibbering idiocy (pee) counterreaction to the new's gratuitous fatuity (dookie). Usually, though, one's bowel-rumblings (Bic lits) pass unnosed in the c'punk parfumerie.

2 1

Re: Digital Watermarks for copy protection in recent Billbo
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:54 PM 7/24/96, Alex F wrote: >> >Yes, but concievably if (whoever would be incharge, FBI?) *could*, >> >under law do this, even if they are wrong. It is a lot harder to >> >prove that they intentionally harrassed *you* than it is for them to >> >say that they were following leads and show evidence. Yes, this may >> >> To go to trial, an indictment would be needed. How likely is this? > >The likelyness is irrelevant to the point. Possibility is relevant. >Probability is not. "Likeliness" is _always_ relevent when discussing law. I am not a lawyer, but I've virtually certain that "receiving stolen property" laws involve terms like "knowingly" and/or "conspiracy." That is, "scienter." While "ignorance of the law is no excuse" is certainly true in many cases, the law comprehends the reality that certain actions are not crimes if no knowledge of a criminal act was involved. (Sorry if this is not phrased more clearly.) Thus, the guy who buys a bicycle that later turns out to have been stolen, will usually lose the bicycle, but is not knowingly receiving stolen property and hence is guilty of no crime. And no DA will charge him; the courts and jails are already clogged up enough. Of course, if he _knew_ the bicycle was stolen (e.g., he "placed an order" to have one stolen, a market which actually exists in some places, usually for cars), then "scienter" has been met, and perhaps "conspiracy," and so prosecution is more likely. I maintain that this "wiggle factor" in the law is not something to get worried about ("But they _could_ arrest me for buying a book stolen 10 years ago! We've got to do something!) and is, in fact, essential in any justice system. There just is no "automated" or "formal" system, and probably/hopefully never will be. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Schelling Points, Rights, and Game Theory--Part II
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As promised in Part I, here is more on the application of Schelling points to the discussion of "rights" (property rights, rights of parents to tell their children what to do, etc.). We saw that Schelling points, as developed by Richard Schelling and others, are essentially "lower entropy" points. (In fact, I suspect there are formulations which involve so-called "maxiumum entropy" methods which would reproduce the theory of Schelling points; Cover and Thomas hint at this in their "Information Theory" book.) How does this apply to rights? Let us take as an example the contentious issue of "parent's rights," "children's rights," and societal issues involving schooling, child abuse, indoctrination into the body politic, citizenship, etc. * Viewpoint #1: Parents have absolute control of what their minor (under some age, usually 18 and/or resident in their homes) children read, watch on t.v., listen to on the radio, etc. They can control the comings and goings of their minor children, whom they may associate with, etc. * Viewpoint #2: Children, even minor children, have certain basic rights to access to information, access to t.v., radio, music, and books. Even access to crypto! * Viewpoint #3: The State and/or Community has an interest in the upbringing of a child and may take steps to direct the education and exposure to information of children, even in contravention of the wishes of parents. There are of course various shadings of these viewpoints. And examples can be found to defend each of these viewpoints, and also to attack them. (For example, what of the Christian Scientist who lets his 5-year-old die of an easily-curable disease because he believes injections are unGodly? What of the 10-year-old who is taught in public schools how to use condoms (or how to clean dirty needles), in contravention of the wishes of the parent?) Cutting to the chase, I submit that nearly all societies have "evolved" an approach that says: -- "While I may think you are raising your child in a way different from how I would raise him, I cannot take over the raising of your child, and I cannot be in your house/tent/cave/yurt at all times, or even at _any_times, so I will basically not interfere unless something really egregious happens." This is a "Schelling point" in the same way that territorial boundaries develop and are mutually adhered to, for the most part. The _costs_ of extending beyond the Schelling point boundaries is deemed to be too high, and the boundary persists. (Boundaries may jump around, as conditions change. And wars still exist to try to imbalance or move the boundaries. Nothing says the Schelling points are fixed in stone, only that the points are not completely random, and that there is a kind of order out of the chaos.) This is summarized in the most important of all Schelling points: "Live and let live." In the absence of a direct threat to one's self or family, and in the absence of other compelling evidence of a need to intervene, much energy and grief is saved by not trying to intervene in the lives of others. (I believe many of the themes we talk about, here and in libertarian circles, come together in this way. The view of John Rawls, that "justice" is that which an ensemble of people of people would pick, even if they did not what station in life they would be born into, closely fits with this Schelling point model.) ObCrypto Sidebar: The "fair" method for dividing a pie between two people is well-known: "You cut, I choose." This *game theory* result is central to many cryptographic protocols (though it may not always be apparent at first). And the protocol can be extended to 3 parties, and proabably to N. Research is ongoing on this, including Cypherpunk Robin Hanson's work at Caltech. My essay here is not a formal, footnoted proof of my claims, naturally. But I believe my claims to be basically correct, and to offer insights into the debate about "rights"...certainly a Schelling point or evolutionary game theory interpretation of what we call "rights" is superior to an appeal-to-God or "natural rights" interpretation. To get back to the issue of children's rights: I will not expend my energies and risk my life to forcibly gain entry to my neighbor's "castle" to make sure his 7-year-old son is able to view "Power Rangers" when his "rights" to do so are denied by his father. Nor will I pay for cops, Child Protective Services, and a powerful bureaucracy to enforce these "rights." Nor will I demand that this parent send his child to the church I deem most appropriate, nor the school I deem most appropriate, etc. That is, "practical and economic" issues lead me to the conclusion that parents basically can tell their minor children what to do, and that only truly egregious cases, such as clear cases of severe beatings, warrant the interference by the State. The same applies to cryptography. While there are dangers with any technology, including cryptographers, most societies have eventually evolved a system in which one is secure in one's home and papers. Orwell's vision of video cameras in all homes (actually, only of the elites, as the "proles" were unmonitored) has not come to pass, and even in nominally totalitarian states like the U.S.S.R. and P.R.C. there was considerable privacy in the home, at least after the worst of the terrors in the 1930-70 period. (I am not endorsing these states, naturally, just noting that even these states had to recognize the Schelling points of (mostly) not trying to send cops into private residences to enforce marginally-important rules.) Forceful advocates of children's rights, such as Mike Duvos, will no doubt find many points to use to argue for intervention on behalf of children. And in some case, I would even agree. But the basic principle, the "right" of a man to control his own castle, and the "right" not to have people nosing around inside his home, and the very real economic point that a parent pays for services and good consumed in his house, means that the balance of rights _must_ be in the direction of Viewpoint #1 above. Parents are free to raise their children as they see fit. They feed and clothe them, they talk to them about ideas and beliefs, they control the television set and the radio channel tuned to, and so forth. This is basic reality. To change this basic reality would require intervention from outside. And this is too high a price to pay for illusory gains. (I say "illusory" because I don't think intervention from outside would produce better-educated children, though it might produce more controllable citizen-units.) This essay has concentrated perhaps too much on "parent's vs. children's rights," but this is what sparked my desire to write an essay on Schelling points and why certain so-called rights appear to have evolved. I believe the game-theoretic and evolutionary approaches, mixed in with economics, offer the most solid grounding for the discussion of rights. Comments, as always, are welcome. --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! 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, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Shell buys key escrow system from Trusted Info. Systems
by Will Rodger 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Administration officials didn't return calls for comment, but it's clear that the Clinton-Gore team have their first "testbed" for trying out key recovery, or key escrow, proposals. Steven Walker, president of Glenwood, Md.'s Trusted Information Systems Inc., told Inter@ctive Week late last week that TIS will supply his companys Gauntlet Firewall technology, complete with commercial key escrow capabilities, to an a large multinational with headquarters outside the United States. The multinational company will self-escrow, that is handle all encryption keys itself, in cooperation with the British government, sources close to the deal said. Walker declined to name the company, but several Washington-based sources confirmed the buyer is Royal Dutch Shell. The deal represent the first time that a foreign buyer has purchased a US key escrow product without escrowing keys in the US. Indeed, TIS has sold only one other system for export abroad, one which involved communications between the US and the UK with US key escrow. Walker, widely credited with devising the controversial commerical key escrow system now being promoted by the current administration, claimed "there really is an important issue here in finding a balance between the interest of government and those of industry. A policy that says anyone who wants to export strong encryption as long as there is key recovery is an important development." The success of the deal and others like it could figure heavily in the Clinton administration's ability to sell it its latest proposals on commercial key escrow; a recent report from the National Research Council recently warned that such efforts were unproven and required serious examiniation before they could be deployed. Long-time critics of the proposal have, in turn, leveled the same criticisms. Jim Bidzos, President of RSA Data Security Inc. and a long-time foe of administration policy said he doubted the market would rush to purchase products like Trusted Information Systems, but said he was slightly more hopeful for a resolution to the controversy than he had been previously. "Ive said all along that user key escrow is the only thing that makes sense," Bidzos said. Users who hold their own keys "can comply with any regulation in the world - if you want to give your keys to France or whoever you can thats your business. If it's good enough for the CIO, it's good enough for the CIA." Royal Dutch Shell officials said security considerations forbade confirming a sale had been made, but freely admitted to having had talks with TIS. The companys interest key escrow, computer security head Nick Mansfield said, lay principally in getting access to records after keys had been lost, stolen or otherwise disabled. The Gauntlet firewall, nonetheless, encrypts and decrypts messages as they arrive; it does not store messages in encrypted form. "To us its not a matter of going along with key escrow, its a matter of doing business," Mansfield said. ********* A shorter, slightly less jargon-laden version of this story appeared in the 7/22 issue o fInter@ctive Week. An archived copy should be on our site (http://www.zdnet.com/intweek) by week's end. Will Rodger Washington Bureau Chief Inter@ctive Week -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMfa2sUcByjT5n+LZAQE4nAf7BA5X2f3LX1KQXXygkYtaGWc6qMgDEFWA cYlQNtVw+KS+h8hNRmpZ4KWaUJS1iwHPfwaS0XqI40gVGyZE2mYBmF6RybAkLKKV zGXEyIlAVxKOz2FsRQ35Tg1VV5Y8NaL+YxK3uUcutLHBK/Vxq7iLcnaqRn2klfYM 6ImSKecHMU2NzaB8JGIIJbAuG7NpGmLj/O4BEP3ccoNeA3NQ1fIAujMyL12gbdPF TUZVUOLsj5eHG1dwqRmSUdsNHcwYoQ6WFX2waIdot0Ia/nph/ERpliVjkccIsKsz q+qDeH0fz3ZoENS/zqUy9ilHwLcAdMoiyQzlm06dZBRf+O9rqpDjKA== =RJjm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0