- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: 5th protect password?
by jim bell 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 02:25 PM 4/21/96 +0000, Jonathon Blake wrote: > > The first forensic use of graphology may have occurred as early > as 1960. In 1975, a Juvenile Court Judge in Boulder CO used > graphology forensically to determine the most appropriate method > of handling some of the cases that appeared in _his_ court. > > Most courts in the United States regard the forensic use of > graphology as dubious, at best. A few have ruled against > it. > >> The point is that the demanding of handwriting samples is a fairly new >> What do you want to bet that it first occurred in this century? > > For questioned document examination? Sometime during the > sixties. > For graphological examination? Hasn't occurred yet. Tell this to Unicorn. He seems to disagree, although he hasn't cited specifics yet. > >> If that were the case, there there would be no justification for demanding a >> handwriting sample. Nevertheless, it is apparently done. And while a > > Can you provide a citation where a court has demanded a handwriting > sample for graphological purposes? Adding the conditional "for graphological purposes," I can't. I was merely referring to a SC decision previously quoted here. The writing of that reference didn't make clear what purposes the sample could be used for. > >> Question: Let's suppose, for the purposes of argument, the policy was >> diametrically opposite, and no such samples were taken, ostensibly because > > The gist of the argument is that handwriting samples are public, > and that things are written for public consumption, not private > consumption. > >> would come to the opposite conclusion. You would have to explain to people >> why the precedents were all wrong. > > > You are taking a completely hypothetical situation that never had > a basis in what could have happened. No. What I was trying to do is to get people to stop thinking of legal precedent as being some sort of end-all incident that makes all further discussion pointless. >> demanded of a defendant in 1783, which was about when the 5th amendment was >> written. > > What they said. > Where they said it. > What they had in their possession. > Where they had said items in their possession. > > Note in passing that rules for admitting something into > evidence was a lot looser then, than it is now. If that's really the case, and this would today be considered a clear violation of the 5th, what does that say about the claim that "current government policy" must be right? Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

3 2

Re: Meta: The Arguing about the Terms of the Wager Continues
by jamesd＠echeque.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:45 PM 4/23/96 -0700, Timothy C. May wrote: > And so the back-and-forth continues...taking up even more list space > arguing, waffling, finessing, rebutting, disputing, and on an on. > > Exactly as several of us have predicted. True, but one should note that it is Jim Bell that is weaseling, and that Unicorn is not weaseling. --------------------------------------------------------------------- | 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

Golden Key Campaign
by Dave Banisar 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

PRESS RELEASE Wednesday, April 24, 1996 URL: http://www.privacy.org/ipc/ Contact: Marc Rotenberg, EPIC, 202/544-9240 Lori Fena, EFF, 415/436-9333 Barbara Simons, USACM 408/463-5661 Kurt Stammberger, RSA, 415/595-8782 ------------------------------------------ INTERNET PRIVACY COALITION FORMED Golden Key Campaign Launched Groups Urge Good Technology for Privacy and Security Senator Burns to Introduce Legislation ------------------------------------------ WASHINGTON, DC -- A new coalition today urged support for strong technologies to protect privacy and security on the rapidly growing Internet. The Internet Privacy Coalition said that new technologies were critical to protect private communications and on-line commerce, and recommended relaxation of export controls that limit the ability of US firms to incorporate encryption in commercial products. Phil Zimmermann, author of the popular encryption program Pretty Good Privacy, expressed support for the effort of the new coalition. "It is time to change crypto policy in the United States. I urge those who favor good tools for privacy to back the efforts of the Internet Privacy Coalition." GOLDEN KEY CAMPAIGN LAUNCHED The Coalition has asked companies and Internet users to display a golden key and envelope to show support for strong encryption technology. Copies of the logo are available at the group's web page on the Internet. According to Lori Fena, director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the purpose of the campaign is to educate the public about new techniques for privacy protection. "Society's feelings about privacy have not changed, only the medium has," said Ms. Fena. US industry has pressed the US government to relax export controls on encryption as consumer demand for software products has increased. They cite the fact that foreign companies have been able to sell strong products in overseas markets that are now restricted for US firms. Jim Bidzos, President and CEO of RSA Data Security, said that US firms continue to face excessive burdens. "Encryption is the key to on-line commerce. Government regulations are simply keeping US firms out of important markets." The Internet Privacy Coalition is the first attempt to bring together a broad base of companies, cryptographers and public interest organizations around the central goal of promoting privacy and security on the Internet and urging relaxation of export controls. Dr. Barbara Simons, chair of the public policy committee of the Association for Computing said, "The broad support for the Golden Key campaign shows that the reform of encryption policy is a shared goal for companies, users, and professional associations." SENATOR BURNS TO INTRODUCE LEGISLATION The Internet Privacy Coalition is being established as Congress considers new legislation to relax export controls on encryption. Senator Conrad Burns (R-MT) today introduced legislation that would relax export controls on commercial products containing technologies for privacy such as encryption. Marc Rotenberg, director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said "We believe that Senator Burns has put forward a constructive proposal. We look forward to working with him to ensure that good tools for privacy and security are widely available to Internet users." Hearings on Senator Burns bill are expected to take place in early June. The proposal has already gathered support from a bipartisan coalition in Congress. For Internet users who are interested in following the debate about encryption policy, the IPC has set up a Web page with information about encryption regulations, court challenges, legislative developments, and organizations and companies involved in the campaign. The Internet Privacy Coalition was established by more than a dozen of the nation's leading cryptographers, and thirty associations, companies, and civil liberties organizations committed to strong privacy and security technology for all users of the Internet. URL: http://www.privacy.org/ipc/ ---------------------------------------------- A KEY, AN ENVELOPE -- Both are historic means for communicating privately and protecting personal information. Today, encryption tools provide this privacy in the electronic world. The Golden Key Campaign is being launched to raise awareness and support for the preservation of the right to communicate privately and the availability of new techniques which make it possible. Privacy, a fundamental human right, has been affirmed by the US Supreme Court, the constitutions and laws of many countries, and the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Privacy must be preserved as we move from paper to electronic communications. The Internet Privacy Coalition is urging members of the net community to display a Golden Key & Envelope symbol on their Web pages to show support for the right of privacy and the freedom to use good tools of privacy without government restraints. ----------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Re: Nazis on the Net
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"wombat(a)mcfeely.bsfs.org" "Rabid Wombat" 23-APR-1996 21:57:59.91 >I'm typing green letters on a black background. All you people with black >characters on a white background should go talk on another 'net. I never said I approved of separatism; I just consider it slightly less evil than racism. It's sort of like the distinction between Chinese censorship of the Net and American (attempted) censorship of the net - both are evil, the American one is just less so because it doesn't go as far. The distinction between racism and separatism isn't as great, admittedly. -Allen

1 0

Re: "Separate but equal" as a racist doctrine
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tallpaul(a)pipeline.com" 24-APR-1996 03:36:53.30 >For some considerable period of time the doctrine of "separate but equal" >was one of the major racist theories in the U.S. I am quite aware of this; I grew up in the South. In practice, it wasn't seperate but equal; it was separate but unequal. This was the intent of the persons pushing it, which made them racist. (They are also justifiably classified as racist on many other grounds). >People who wish to organize for racist ideology behind this doctrine while >proclaiming they are not racists merely place themselves in the old racist >camp. Their organizing for (and their denials of) racist ideology does not >make them less racist, just less honest. Persons who wish to organize for _racist_ ideology, yes. But assuming that every separatist is actually a racist is about like assuming that everyone on this list is an anarcho-capitalist; while correct in the majority of cases, it isn't correct in all. (You and I are both exceptions, for instance.) -Allen

1 0

Re: You have been deleted
by attila 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> From: attila <attila(a)primenet.com> Reply-To: attila <attila(a)primenet.com> Subject: Re: "You have been deleted" Addressed to: Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> ** Reply to note from Black Unicorn <unicorn(a)schloss.li> 04/24/96 03:01am -0400 = On Tue, 23 Apr 1996, Timothy C. May wrote: = = > its route and landed on my hill, abducting me for medical experiments I am = > too embarrassed to describe (except that Chelsea was also involved). I am = > back now, albeit subtly changed (for the better). = = That a medical experiment including Chelsea could improve a man is beyond = the bounds of reason. = = Mr. May, are you making this up? = attila sez: Not necessarily. it may be speculation or wishful thinking on the part of Chelsea, or even Bubba and Hillary. -- Obscenity is a crutch for inarticulate motherfuckers. Fuck the CDA! cc: Tim May <tcmay(a)got.net> Cypherpunks <cypherpunks(a)toad.com>

1 0

Kill Files
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 2:04 PM 4/24/96, s1113645(a)tesla.cc.uottawa.ca wrote: >One must note that capital punishment is an excellent means of >unsuvscription. > > >(Ps. Just joking, Jason or whoever you are.) On a serious note, I hereby predict that the term "kill file" will soon be picked up by the clueless media and/or Congress as a sign that the Internet is dangerous. (I'm sure it already has been used as a negative, but I'm predicting a more visible focus on this term, however briefly. To the average American, it conjures up images closely related to Jim Bell's ideas!) I had one of our "unsubscrive" newbies asking me what I meant by "putting him in my kill file," and saying he was planning to let his site manager know about "your threat." --Tim 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."

1 0

Re: Golden Key Campaign
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 1:11 AM 4/25/96 -0700, Bill Stewart wrote: >At 02:22 PM 4/24/96 -0700, Wei Dai <weidai(a)eskimo.com> wrote: >>On Wed, 24 Apr 1996, Hal wrote: >>You can do signatures with Rabin too. I have a version of it in >>Crypto++ 2.0. It's been out for a while and RSA hasn't bothered me about >>it. >>Does anyone want to explain why, given the alternatives, people continue >>to use RSA and pay for it? > >Sure. Because 1) it's a good algorithm for the job, >2) we've learned it, and have a PGP base behind our inertia, >3) The legalities of RSA are well-defined, >4) the Stanford patents mostly run out in 1997, unless Roger's suit > succeeds first, >5) the price of RSA is fairly low, once free RSAREF came out >6) the price of licensing Cylink patents is high and/or unpredictable I will add to Bill's list: 7) RSA is the best known and vetted of the Public Key algorithms. Some people say that the millennium comes on Jan 1, 2000. Others say it comes on January 1, 2001. I say it comes on September 20, 2000 when the RSA patent expires. Regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

4 5

Crypto Software Review Wanted
by Travis Hassloch x231 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There's a ton of only semi-organized stuff out there. I would like structured info... more that just a filename, without having to install it myself, etc... Review of the packages would be real nice. PS: I heard CFS requires having NFS installed (ick!) and someone mentioned this opens you up to "portmapper assisted attacks"... I've avoided NFS and RPC until now so I don't know... does this have any credibility? Will I have to install a firewall to protect NFS just so I can use CFS to encrypt on disk? :) CC me in the replies please, since I'm not on the list... although I might get on coderpunks if the volume is small. Hmm, I just noticed the cypherpunks-ratings list, I wonder if this is what I'm looking for... too bad it doesn't have a description or an info file. -- travis(a)evtech.com | Virtual Reality Bites | P=NP if (P=0 or N=1) There's a thin line between an email message and its signature.

1 0

Re: Golden Key Campaign
by frantz＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 5:18 PM 4/25/96 -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote: >Bill Frantz writes: >> I do not equate good vetting with proofs of security. Given the Verona >> intercepts, I don't think there are any valid proofs of the security of >> complete crypto-systems. > >In that case, why do you think that an RSA system would be better >implemented as a matter of necessity than a Rabin system? I don't imply that. I do think that the use of proof is of limited applicability in demonstrating security. Complex proofs can be as much in doubt as complex computer programs. Used within its limitations, proof is very valuable, but too often its value is asserted beyond those limitations. The Varona case applies because of the common statement that one time pads are the only provably secure crypto-system. >> 7a) RSA is the best known public key algorithm. > >Meaningless and unimportant. Not in terms of why people use RSA rather than some other algorithm. >> 7b) RSA is the best vetted public key algorithm. > >Again, false. RSA has no proofs of security, and other systems have >far better proofs. RSA also leaks small bits of information like >parity that other systems do not leak. This is not to say that RSA is >bad, but its choice over, say, Rabin, at least for encryption, is >fairly abitrary. Thanks for the information. Schneier (V2) says that while Rabin and Williams are provably as secure as factoring. They, like RSA, are completely insecure against a chosen cyphertext attack. Correcting this problem by using a one-way hashing function makes them no longer provably as secure as factoring, although adding a random string does not have this defect. Rabin also has the problem, which Williams corrects, that each message has four possible decypherments, and the user must select the correct one. While these systems have a small theoretical advantage over RSA (their provability), how much effort has been expended in examining them compared with RSA? Level of effort is important in determining "best vetted". (I realize that some efforts, such as research into factoring, apply to both systems.) Regards - Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Frantz | The CDA means | Periwinkle -- Computer Consulting (408)356-8506 | lost jobs and | 16345 Englewood Ave. frantz(a)netcom.com | dead teenagers | Los Gatos, CA 95032, USA

1 0