- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Cop On The Net - Watch Your ***
by NetSurfer 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just when you thought it was safe to surf in the sunlight... -NetSurfer #include standard.disclaimer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> == = = |James D. Wilson |V.PGP 2.4: 512/E12FCD 1994/03/17 > " " " |P. O. Box 15432 |finger for key / Viacrypt Reseller > " " /\ " |Honolulu, HI 96830 |====================================> \" "/ \" |Serendipitous Solutions| Also NetSurfer(a)sersol.com > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 10 Jun 1994 00:13:43 -0400 From: E-d-u-p-a-g-e <info(a)ivory.educom.edu> Subject: E-d-u-p-a-g-e 06/09/94 CYBERCOP A former New Jersey police officer now spends his time cruising for suspects in cyberspace and has been involved in dozens of criminal investigations, including a sting operation that nabbed a pedophile who lured young rape victims via a bulletin board service. (Tampa Tribune 6/8/94 BayLife 5) E-MAIL PRIVACY A survey of 301 companies by Macworld Magazine showed that 78.4% of the firms do not spy on employee e-mail or search their electronic files. Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) has drafted legislation requiring that companies tell their workers that their e-mail might be monitored. (Tampa Tribune 6/8/94 BayLife 5) PAT ROBERTSON EYES VIETNAMESE CABLE TV Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson wants to build a cable-TV system in Vietnam and is confident a deal can be struck after meeting with government and TV officials in Hanoi. The proposed system will use microwave technology to beam dozens of channels to homes. (Investor's Business Daily 6/8/94 A9)

1 0

hi
by lile＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Just thought I'd say hi... :) -lile

1 0

Hum, 100 - 78.4 = 21.6 % spying
by bart＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

As Netsurfer posted without comment, from Edupage 06/09/94: E-MAIL PRIVACY A survey of 301 companies by Macworld Magazine showed that 78.4% of the firms do not spy on employee e-mail or search their electronic files. Sen. Paul Simon (D-Ill.) has drafted legislation requiring that companies tell their workers that their e-mail might be monitored. (Tampa Tribune 6/8/94 BayLife 5) If anyone has Macworld perhaps we might contact the author for further details. It seems to me a startling point to be told that one in five email users IS being spied on. How many more encryption buffs might emerge if this were common knowledge?

1 0

Re: COCOM is dead (Was: PGP in Australia)
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Joe writes: > > There are no restrictions on importing crypto into Australia, there are > > some on export (hardware only) due to COCOM. > > I thought COCOM was dead as of last March or thereabouts. > Did a replacement committee ever get formed? I was surprised not to see any discussion of this on the net, by my newspaper had found its way into the recycle bin before I got around to typing in the article or seeing if the Times or Wall St. Journal had an article with genuine details. What I remember seeing was that COCOM was disbanded, but the member governments were going to maintain the rules for a while on their own until they're sure the Commies are really gone and not just hiding under the bed somewhere and there aren't any other convenient enemies on the horizon. So it's a good start, but doesn't change any laws directly. On the other hand, with countries like Germany and Colombia legalizing or decriminalizing marijuana, who knows? Bill

1 0

Re: Regulatory Arbitrage
by wcs＠anchor.ho.att.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Eric writes: > Regulatory arbitrage is an Important concept, as well as a great phrase. > The writer is square in the middle of the mainstream in the business > world, and note how effortlessly he speaks of avoiding governments and > playing them off against each other. I'm not surprised, though my perspective has perhaps been enhanced by growing up in the land of the Delaware Corporation - part of the advantage of Delaware was that corporate taxes were low, but additionally the regulatory climate was friendly and there was almost 200 years of corporate relationships with the local government, so most disputes could be expected to be resolved reasonably fairly. It seems that business, like the net, regards censorship and other interference as damage, and routes around it.... > Arbitrage of regulation almost always leads to equalization, although > the time scales are much longer. When equalization happens, it's > almost never that the advantage decreases for the destination buyer. No surprise here - as transportation and communication improve, it becomes easier for buyers to buy things anywhere, from anyone, and the pool of available suppliers increases. And buyers are stuck with their local regulatory stupidity, but they can shop around for sellers with less stupid regulations. Meanwhile, the leverage of sellers with government-supported monopoly markets is decreased, because their local markets are less captive, and foreign markets aren't forced to buy from them; it becomes increasingly to their advantage to leverage on their current size to outcompete external competition while decreasing instead of increasing regulations on their businesses. Sometimes the only way to level the playing field is to get rid of the walls you built around it.... Bill

1 0

Re: Remailer Chaining Security?
by nobody＠cyberspace.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

I don't have the disk space to use PGP or to keep logs. Feel free to use me...

1 0

RE: Remailer Chaining Security?
by usura＠vox.hacktic.nl 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

nobody(a)shell.portal.com writes: : What level of security is achieved by the practice of "chaining" : messages through various "anonymous remailers"? To find out your "real" identity, those who want to find out need to have cooperation of all remailer involved. If one link cannot/doesnot cooperate the chain is broken and so your ID remains hidden. : Do these servers not keeps logs by which a post could be traced back : through the chain to the source? If there is a REAL level of security : afforded, then the question arises "how much is enough"? My remailers keep no sendlogs, and they are out-side US jurisdiction. Only anon(a)vox.hacktic.nl has a database to match the allocated ID to an email adress. remail & remailer do not keep logs at all. My remailers also support PGP and changing Subjects, you can send a PGPencrypted message to VoX and it will be decypted, if the recipiant has a PGPpubKEY in my KEYring [with matching adress] mail send to him/her will also be encrypted using that KEY. If you want more info send a msg to HELP(a)vox.hacktic.nl But remember it is up to you to decide whether you trust the remail operator or not. Sending mail in a chain of remailers who support PGP will give the following : remailer 1 : recieves an ecnrypted message, the system decrypts and gives a R-R-To: remailer 2 + an "new" encrypted msg. Only remailer 1 could know the real ID of the sender but he doesnot know the contents of the remailed msg. remailer 2 : receives an encrypted message from remailer 1, the system decrypts and gives a R-R-To: remailer 3 + an "new" encrpted message. Remailer 2 only could find out that the message came from remailer 1 the real ID an contents of the message is being kept secret for remailer 2. remailer 3 : reciever an encrypted message from remailer 2, the system decrypts and gives an R-R-To: the recipiant and the decrypted message. Remailer 3 only could find out what the contents and the recipiant are, the originator will be kept hidden. Note that the encrypted messages are "enveloped" in the previous encrypted message. [The msg to rem 1 is encrypted and contains the encrypted mesg for rem 2, which does contain the encrypted message for rem 3] Regz, -- Exit! Stage Left. Alex de Joode <usura(a)vox.hacktic.nl>

1 0

ANNOUNCE: June SF Bay Area physical meeting
by hughes＠ah.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

ANNOUNCEMENT ------------ The June meeting will be held tommorrow, Saturday, June 11, at Silicon Graphics. This will be our second meeting at SGI. We're no longer at Cygnus; thanks again to John Gilmore for the use of Cygnus facilities. Thanks to Katy Kislitzin for arranging the use of SGI facilities. This month's meeting will be about "Keys and Key Distribution." Contributions are always welcomed; on-topic will have priority, but off-topic will be fine if we have time. This month's meeting will be mostly roundtable discussion. There will be no MBONE this month. Look for it next time. Date: Saturday, June 11, 1994 Time: 12:00 noon - 6:00 p.m. Place: Cafe Iris, Building 5 Silicon Graphics Mt. View, CA, USA Theme: "Keys and Key Distribution" Eric ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIRECTIONS: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Building 5 (SGI Cafeteria) 2025 North Shoreline Boulevard Mountain View, CA >From 101 take Shoreline East. This is towards Shoreline Amphitheatre. It's also "logical east", and points more north that east. (That is, it's east with respect to 101 North, which points west near the exit.) If you're coming in on 101 South, you'll cross over the bridge. Continue on Shoreline and go past a whole bunch of other SGI buildings. Turn right onto Steirlin Court at the big red metal sculpture. There will be even more SGI buildings surrounding you--take note of the building numbers. Go almost to the end of this street. Building 5 is on the right.

1 0

Re: Crime and punishment in cyberspace - 3 of 3
by Patrick Juola 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> > Well, that's one view of rights. However, most attempts to base so > called natural rights (i.e. rights that are somehow intrinsic to human > existence) have been largely unsuccesful. It's a tough argument to make. > Seems to me the 'inalienable rights' that are mentioned in our founding charter carry this argument quite well. I suspect they also 'prove' them as well. Proof by declaration of self-evidence? ``We hold these truths to be self-evident.... that [all humans] are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." If, for some reason, I claim that the right to liberty is *not* self-evident, it can be very difficult to convince me otherwise. This is one of the difficulties of natural-rights arguments; that they tend to assert certain rights (right to privacy, right to property, right to personal space, right to free speech, &c) axiomatically when they are often the subject of the discussion. Patrick

1 0

Re: Crime and punishment in cyberspace - 3 of 3
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Jim choate "Rights are the items of a citizens characteristic which are outside the ability of that government to control within its charter. Rights come before a government forms. If they didn't then you would not be able to give it a charter." This is true in the sense that one has the right to exist and to function and in general to be oneself independent of artificial government operations. In Nature, you have a "right" to anything you like, but there may be no one besides yourself there to appreciate that fact and to deliver it. When a group of individuals associate and create agreements/charters, the delineation of rights serves to protect their separateness - their property, their privacy, their character - against encroachments from the group, by defining consciously where the boundary lines are to be drawn - what the individual can expect to keep, in exception to what everyone expects to share. Once a group considers itself an official "society" of like-minded individuals, they often begin to demand "rights" which do not naturally belong to them or their society - or which they have not explicity agreed to share: . the right to have what others have created/produced (like a service which nature does not automatically arrange for delivery - ex: optical cables & the internet at 3200 bps) . the right to access what is not their own (outside of what nature has naturally endowed them with - ex: computers) "Self protection is a requirement in general against another individual and not a society." A society of like-minded individuals can also be a threat to the safety of non-conformists, depending on how the group decides to respond to those who are not exactly like the others. Blanc

3 2