- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: CYPHERPUNK considered harmful.
by patrick＠Verity.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just a couple of comments, one on a question and one on an answer. > > >Q: Aren't LEAs worried that strong encryption will make it more > >difficult for them to catch crooks? If this is for non-cypherpunks, you should say what an LEA is. They wouldn't understand your question. (Shoot, some cypherpunks are probably going, "Huh?") > > >Q: What's this 'key escrow' thing? > > > >A: Some government agencies have been trying to figure out methods which > >simultaneously permit US citizens to use strong cryptography against > >criminal eavesdroppers, while retaining the ease with which LEAs can > >currently tap your calls. The schemes generally involve something > >mistitled 'key escrow', in which copies of cryptographic keys would be > >stored at sites accessible by LEAs. > > 'key escrow' is a code word for government access to the unencrypted > message. It is a persistent theme, dating back to the NSA's CCEP in about You probably need to say what the NSA is, and certainly have to identify CCEP. Patrick _______________________________________________________________________ / These opinions are mine, and not Verity's (except by coincidence;). \ | (\ | | Patrick J. Horgan Verity Inc. \\ Have | | patrick(a)verity.com 1550 Plymouth Street \\ _ Sword | | Phone : (415)960-7600 Mountain View \\/ Will | | FAX : (415)960-7750 California 94303 _/\\ Travel | \___________________________________________________________\)__________/

1 0

Things the LEAs don't want to admit.
by liberty＠gate.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Andrew Loewenstern writes: <snip> >Encryption prevents 'fishing expeditions' and >unauthorized monitoring; this is what the LEAs don't want to admit. AMEN, Andrew. Another thing the LEAs don't want to admit is the incredible (cost and otherwise) effectiveness of the "Honey Trap" (SEX!) when used by (or against) them. Cash isn't the only way to recruit another Aldrich Ames(sp?), and sex is a lot easier to launder. <g> JMR -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Freedom isn't Freeh iQCVAwUBMFh3P21lp8bpvW01AQGiawP/RbB0VL2wQ4zp712EEHt3IKz+HQpM8rjY KXXMMTdMpryBX2pWZRxm82ewYwiSwI2U+Ij67jQ+9Ev2/S1WgVCiV+se05oZ8n85 QkWI182G+Bk4JJ46/LwBDFos8gp9WRYCoRVFgA5SmV92r05MpPnrtzNUCG31D8vd FsB+JDwnZQ8= =rUVo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Regards, Jim Ray "When making public-policy decisions for the government, I think one should ask oneself which technologies would best strengthen the hand of a police state. Then, do not allow the government to deploy those technologies." -- Phillip Zimmermann, talking to himself. (Congress sure-as-hell wasn't paying attention!) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- PGP key Fingerprint 51 5D A2 C3 92 2C 56 BE 53 2D 9C A1 B3 50 C9 C8 Key id. # E9BD6D35 James M. Ray <liberty(a)gate.net> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Help Phil! email zldf(a)clark.net or see http://www.netresponse.com/zldf _______________________________________________________________________

1 0

Corrections to "Ron Plesser's take on NIST GAK"
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There were a few sentences truncated in what I posted yesterday, due to mistakes on my part. Here's the corrections. John ... The Administration policy for 40-bit-key encryption will continue as-is, and no keys will have to be escrowed for such systems. Mr. Nelson said that the government's main concern is that strong encryption products not be available in the mass market. ... bi-lateral agreements with friendly nations. In a presentation, Bob Holleyman of the Business Software Alliance criticized the Administration's failure to "liberalize export controls on generally available software employing non-key escrow encryption." Also, he stated that the Administration's proposal and the draft criteria "continue to reflect a misunderstanding of the market place and, if implemented in anything like their current form, will prevent key escrow encryption from ever being commercially adopted." Mr. Holleyman recommended a number of features for a marketable system, including a variety of encryption algorithms using at least 64-bit keys and user specification of a key holder.

1 0

Re: Linking = Showing = Transferring?
by joseph＠genome.wi.mit.edu 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>>And Duncan's specific point remains: >> >>-- is it a violation of pornography laws (perhaps campus rules) to have a >>home page with links to URLs containing pornographic images? >> >>-- is it a violation of _child pornography_ laws to have a home page with >>links to URLs containing child pornography images? (The URLs could be >>offshore, perhaps in jurisdictions where the age of consent is much >>different than in the U.S., e.g., Denmark or Thailand.) >> >>-- is it a violation of national security laws to have a home page with >>links to URLs containing national defense secrets? (The URLs could be >>offshore.) >> >>-- is it a violation of copyright/patent laws to have home pages with >>pointers to protected material? (Songs, written works, images, inventions, >>etc.) >> >>And so on.... Here's my question, and a thought to ponder: If it is/becomes illegal to have links on a homepage to pornography because it is ruled as the same as having the pornography there; then can you have links to pages with links (the same as having it) to pornography? This repeats, so would it be legal to links at all? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joseph Sokol-Margolis joseph(a)genome.wi.mit.edu Assistant Systems Administrator seph(a)mit.edu Whitehead Institute/MIT Center for Genome Research phone: (617) 252-1922 One Kendall Sq. Bldg. 300 fax: (617) 252-1902 Cambridge, MA 02139-1561 ----------------------http://www-genome.wi.mit.edu/~joseph/----------------- ----

1 0

Re: [NOISE] Alice's Remailer site
by patrick＠Verity.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > And can you imagine FIFTY people a day? I said FIFTY people a day -- > loggin' in, sending mail through Alice's Remailer site and loggin' out? > And friends, they may think it's a MOVEMENT, and that's what it is: > > THE ALICE'S REMAILER SITE ANTI-E-MAIL-SNIFFING MOVEMENT!-- > > and all you gotta do to join is to flip the bird to those traffic-sniffin' > spooks out there -- With feelin' ... > > > -Tom Swiss / tms(a)tis.com > There sure are a lot of us old fogies around here:) Patrick _______________________________________________________________________ / These opinions are mine, and not Verity's (except by coincidence;). \ | (\ | | Patrick J. Horgan Verity Inc. \\ Have | | patrick(a)verity.com 1550 Plymouth Street \\ _ Sword | | Phone : (415)960-7600 Mountain View \\/ Will | | FAX : (415)960-7750 California 94303 _/\\ Travel | \___________________________________________________________\)__________/

1 0

Re: AOL Porno
by Alan Olsen 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 05:25 AM 9/14/95 -0400, you wrote: >Will the federal prosecutors and Fibbies on this list please >emphasize that the Internet was not involved in the AOL kiddie porn >case. The Internet has enough opportunities for bad publicity as >it is. I watched the local news coverage of that case. The report was given by an individual who has made that mistake before. (He hosts a "Town Hall" program that exploits various subjects of the day. He was corrected as to "AOL not being the Internet" during one of them. I know, I was the one who corrected him.) The coverage showed lots of shots of the various internet binaries echos (including alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.children, but not alt.binaries.pictures.cops.), the web including the Penthouse site (as if Penthouse has kiddy porn), and other unrelated and non-AOL pictures. The Internet has become the new scapegoat of choice. The general media cannot (or is unwilling) to distinguish the difference between electronic nets. The Internet is a generic term for them and since when is the media willing to look beyond the surface? How does this connect to crypto? Well, aiding and abetting in a scapegoat is a capitol crime in this country. You can be assured that the Department of Scapegoat Management will link kiddy porn and crypto at some point in the minds of the generic public. Hopefully that perception can be "headed off at the pass". Having cryptography as a means of avoiding crime and criminals in the perception of the public is a good idea. The question is how to get that perception into the minds of the general public before the other meme can be inplanted by Scapegoat management and the other TLAa? >"Who wonders: How it is that CompuServe was able to exist from 1979 >to the arrival of Prodigy and AOL without major sex, and drugs, and >rock and roll problems?" I think the six-dot-three filenames has something to do with it... | Visualize whirled keys | alano(a)teleport.com | |"It's only half a keyserver. I had to split the | Disclaimer: | |other half with the government man." - Black Art | Ignore the man | | -- PGP 2.6.2 key available on request -- | behind the keyboard.| | http://www.teleport.com/~alano | <fnord> |

1 0

Re: Linking = Showing = Transferring?
by Frank Stuart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[...] >Here's my question, and a thought to ponder: If it is/becomes illegal to >have links on a homepage to pornography because it is ruled as the same as >having the pornography there; then can you have links to pages with links >(the same as having it) to pornography? This repeats, so would it be legal >to links at all? [...] And then there's the problem of URLs not being static. What may be a perfectly innocuos link one day may turn into something not perceived as harmless the next. I seem to recall reading about a French site (Femmes Femmes Femmes) that offered pictures of nude females. When the traffic got too much for them, they jokingly changed the links to point to pictures at the Louvre. However, it could just as easily happen the other way. I also heard something about the ACM taking the position that a URL was not equivalent to the work itself, but I don't have a reference. Frank Stuart | (Admiral Grace) Hopper's Law: fstuart(a)vetmed.auburn.edu | It's easier to get forgiveness than permission.

1 0

Re: Child Porn, Morphing, and Pointers
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In article <ac7db05202021004bc61(a)[205.199.118.202]>, tcmay(a)got.net (Timothy C. May) wrote: >>If I'm reading this correctly, if I Photoshop a kids face onto the body >>of the latest Playboy centerfold, I'm in violation of this proposed law? > >I believe there have already been prosecutions along these lines. For >example, do you think a _comic book_ with child porn themes ("explicit" >art, situations) would not be prosecuted as child porn? > >I strongly suspect that a _painting_ of a 7-year-old girl engaged in a sex >act would result in a prosecution. Any cites? - -- - -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred. - --- [This message has been signed by an auto-signing service. A valid signature means only that it has been received at the address corresponding to the signature and forwarded.] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Gratis auto-signing service iQBFAwUBMFjEkSoZzwIn1bdtAQFO5gGAvKEwd8DuWbNAzMtkqQ4BCPrp5YAOWrcu eSooY922jvZlXV+PYFcamevbR3mZ4bYj =Jxeu -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: Digital Fingerprinting
by carolann＠censored.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>> Why do I feel like I'm sitting on the group W bench? > >I don't know, kid, what you in for? MacN I said, "Velveeta," and they all moved away. "And, using a PGP signed message, through a chained MIXMASTER remailer to help Phil Z.," and they all came back, and we was talking about packet-sniffing, reputation markets, key cracking, ITAR, IP spoofing, Diffee-Hellman session keys, RC4, MD5, and all those wonderful things right there on the group W bench... -- Member Internet Society - Certified BETSI Programmer - Webmistress *********************************************************************** Carol Anne Braddock (cab8) carolann(a)censored.org 206.42.112.96 My Homepage The Cyberdoc *********************************************************************** ------------------ PGP.ZIP Part [017/713] ------------------- M8H,),S$8G>&.WP(8IRA`-M['+`Q%&_C"">5-F%LX@<_Q$;*P'',Q$Z/AA[8M MF=O0H+*%(-S%&>S%+FS&<LS%3(Q&#W1"<]2%`H^;,]^1C$'HBN8PX$4SYAU^ MPGD<Q0ZLA0D+,`MCT!LA**4M[-JPAK9F?40!AJ,CW"'%DR#:'9?Q)3[%<DQ` ------------------------------------------------------------- for next chunk to export --> http://dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/export/

1 0

Re: Linking = Showing = Transferring?
by dsc＠swcp.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Whoops! I mentioned the "linking to a page that links to a page..." problem without noticing that Joseph Sokol-Margolis had already brought it up. Maybe pornography is not in the page (or resource) but in the browser. For example, I have a "pornography enabled" browser, because I can use it to access pornopages. What if I set up a browser for my child that saw a smaller view of the net that did not include pornopages. That browser would not be "pornography enabled". The limited view could be created from some combination of lists of OK sites & pages, lists of off-limits sites & pages, and certification requirements for those in between (virtual OK lists). I have seen the off-limits lists in association with some blocking products. Frank Stuart wrote, >And then there's the problem of URLs not being static. What may be a perfectly >innocuos link one day may turn into something not perceived as harmless the >next. The blocking (off-limits) lists are then always behind and flawed. Better OK lists might be created by the list publisher having contractual commitments from the site owner. A virtual OK list publisher would publish the key for verifying approved pages that have built-in certs. This would provide the better probability that the browser was not pornography enabled. A page would not show if it had been changed. A problem to be solved would be doing this with minimal psychological time costs to the user. Another is making sure that getting certs would not be such a pain that only a few sites would be on the virtual OK list. Of course, I would not want my kids under 10 to see certain ideological pages and there might not be a market to justify certs. I would have to make my own list or get a cheap blocking list or something from the major-group-with-same-ideological-bent-as-dar ftp site. Dar =========================================================== Dar Scott Home phone: +1 505 299 9497 Dar Scott Consulting Voice: +1 505 299 5790 8637 Horacio Place NE Email: darscott(a)aol.com Albuquerque, NM 87111 dsc(a)swcp.com Fax: +1 505 898 6525 http://www.swcp.com/~correspo/DSC/DarScott.html ===========================================================

1 0