- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: Rejecting Dialog with Government Vermin
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 22:43 5/01/97 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote: >On Wed, Apr 30, 1997 at 08:24:27PM -0800, Jim Bell wrote: >> I feel confident that a statistical analysis of various countries' >> governments would reveal a wide scatter in the relationship between >> population and government size. One of the main factors in this scatter is >> simply the amount that government has decided to butt into activities that >> could (and should) be privatized. Another is the amount that the >> government steals from one group in order to reliably receive the votes of >> some other group. > >> Population size would end up being a very poor determinant of government >> size. > >Yes, there would be scatter, but it is not important. The only reason "it is not important" is that this scatter is what demolishes your view of the world. > Population size >is *obviously* a strong determinant of government size. But probably not even close to the largest determinant. >So, having clearly established that larger countries will on balance >have larger governments, we can then just look at organizational >dynamics. *Any* large organization requires more infrastructure to >function. *Any* large organization will develop bureaucracy. This >is true for governments, this is true for businesses, this is true >for schools, this is true for militias. A big city police department >will have many different precints, with multiple layers of >management, a small town will have a chief of police and a few >deputies. But NONE of this is truly needed. I have a solution to that problem. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

4 4

ISP fighting gov't on privacy issue
by Lynne L. Harrison 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [From: CNET NEWS.COM] ISP battles for rebels' rights By Janet Kornblum [May 2, 1997, 12:45 p.m. PT] Todd Jagger, owner of what he calls the "world's smallest" Internet service provider, doesn't like the secessionist Republic of Texas rebels. But he has sued the state attorney general to protect their privacy. The state attorney general's office, seeking to gain information about the rebels, asked to see the records of ten Texas ISPs. Requested items included copies of email and logs of Web site visitors for several groups calling for Texas to split off from the United States. .... See: http://www.news.com/News/Item/0%2C4%2C10327%2C00.html?nd -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 4.5 iQCVAgUBM24yMT5A4+Z4Wnt9AQFVvgP/cUAjpVYWsoNGvqMsX4vaSnAzL3ZhtOFI 0TcBnIOqvOjIJQ+G7ecBPkA+z/4lSA2r5Ed01/Yiau4a9a/A4KcT8a6jWVN4uimB Ll2QSYgrAD9xx0SWLpfGfQsjUJrlsGYsuJ6SiL/rfCCpNKpaD7hXwU0JtwrFdJLp C6HQaHBrY3c= =iCkV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Software patents
by Lucky Green 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:30 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Robert Hettinga wrote: >Anyway, getting back to the point, "avoiding unpleasantness" also means not >having patent lawyers sue those very essential "hoity-toity" trustee banks >for rediculous reasons, like patent infringement, actual or not. There is a simple way to prevent patent lawyers from suing you for supposed patent infringement. Distribute your software from a jurisdiction in which software patents do not exist. South Africa is one of many such jurisdictions. Anecdote: at a conference, I asked a patent attorney what strategy to follow if your patented technology is only happening in the client software. He looked at me like I was drooling on myself and said: "Uhm... Well... Then you have a problem." IANAL, but I suppose the best strategy for the owners of a shaky software patent would be to make people believe that their technology is patented in many more jurisdictions than it actually is. Have fun, -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred "I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence." Mahatma Gandhi

2 1

FOIA results
by Greg Broiles 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Got two FOIA things in the mail today: 1. ~ 200 pp of "LIST OF DUAL USE GOODS AND TECHNOLOGIES AND MUNITIONS LIST" re my Wassenaar FOIA. It's much too long to type or scan. Am planning to type the crypto and software relevant parts when I get some free time. This looks like the document I was expecting. 2. A letter from the NSA in response to my FOIA request re cypherpunks - they want a check for close to $2400 before they'll do a search of their records. I'm not sending them $2400. Am considering appealing their denial of my fee waiver, and/or making a more carefully tailored request. I'll probably scan this within the next few days. -- Greg Broiles | US crypto export control policy in a nutshell: gbroiles(a)netbox.com | http://www.io.com/~gbroiles | Export jobs, not crypto.

1 0

CALEA Comments
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The FBI has published today in the Federal Register industry comments and its responses to Section 104(d) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, 2nd Notice of January 14, 1997, and requests additional comments: http://jya.com/fbi050697.htm (33K)

1 0

Re: Jim Bell in the Oregonian
by jimbell＠pacifier.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:09 5/06/97 -0700, Alan wrote: > >Jim Bell has an editorial (with his picture) in the Oregonian. (Morning >edition, May 6th, 1997 page B-9.) It takes up about a quarter of the >page. > >It is an interesting read. It does not address the problems with AP, Given that the article was, more or less, limited to 800 words (it actually runs about 40 over this informal limit) it is by no means surprising that it "does not address the problems [sic] with AP." Why would you think it would?!? > but >it does deal with the raid and other issues involved. And I've already posted it, but it probably hadn't appeared to most CP subscribers, certainly not by the time you posted your note, and maybe not even when I post this note. > >Jim might consider posting a copy of the original article here. Given the >Oregano's love of cut-and-paste journalism, it would be interesting how >the original and print versions differ. I didn't seen any substantial changes to the body of the article, although my preferred title wasn't used. Jim Bell jimbell(a)pacifier.com

1 0

Since when is supporting unrestricted crypto unreasonable?
by Omegaman 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

"Shabbir J. Safdar" <shabbir(a)vtw.org> writes: > You're pretty hard on CDT, but EFF, EPIC, the ACLU, VTW, Americans for Tax > Reform, the Association for Computing Machinery, Computer Professionals for > Social Responsiblity, Eagle Forum, the National Association for Criminal > Defense Lawyers, and PGP Inc all signed this letter. > > Can you consider, perhaps, for a second, that critics of SAFE are being > unreasonable? No. Perhaps we consider accepting the bill with such glaring loopholes unreasonable. > I would think so, as critics of SAFE include the Clinton > Administration. Is that the kind of company that cypherpunks keep? I'll let this remark stand on it's own merit. > Looks like widespread support from people who study this issue for living. > I'm glad to be counted among them. Interesting dismissal and point of view from an organization which is ostensibly a promoter of civil liberties. The trace of elitism in this quote is an irony that this reader didn't miss. "Democracy," indeed. It appears that in your daily study of this issue -- and I'm assuming that familiarity with Cypherpunks is part of that -- you missed some of the differences between many Cypherpunks and your organization(s). We all agree that unrestricted/unregulated Cryptography is a "good thing." However, the compromises ACLU, EPIC, EFF, CDT, etc. are willing to make with this bill do not further this ultimate goal. Unless the administration intends to simply ignore the obvious loopholes. There are also some philosophical differences. To quote Alan Davidson: > There is a right we don't have now: The right to export strong > cryptography. The result is that strong, easy-to-use encryption is not > seamlessly integrated into most popular products, and is not accessible to > most people Actually, the government doesn't have the right to impose restrictions on strong cryptography. Yet time and again, it has attempted to do so, resulting in -- as Alan noted -- a chilling effect on the spread of strong crypto in the mass market. And government will continue attempts to reach into regulation of crypto. This is why compromise is unacceptable. Far better to work around it attempting to spread cryptography far and wide while legislators and administrators struggle to slip their agenda past your watchful eyes. But there is another force at work here. There is no "killer" crypto app in the eyes of the masses. PGP 2.6xxxxx is probably the closest thing we currently have in this regard. Furthermore, crypto still remains largely below the public radar. While government officials can trot out the four horsemen with predictable reactions, the proverbial "other side" has few arguments that carry a similar impact. We can cite abuses, encroachment on civil liberties, increasing surveillance efforts, and numerous other frightening developments. None of these have broken into the mass conciousness in the same way that "protecting the children/public safety" arguments have. <Irony> Labels like "militia", "extreme edge" and "radical" also carry alot of weight in the increasingly paranoid public mind.</Irony> Until some outrageous surveillance or crypto related abuse occurs (cryptogate) or is uncovered , it will remain difficult to garner real mass public support. The Newt Gingrich cell-phone fiasco came as close as anything yet. Commercial interests "get it" & support crypto for wholly different reasons. I'm starting to think that until someone actually gets arrested and jailed for using strong, unbreakable encryption that is "suspected" of supporting a crime, little will change. In the meantime, the administration, Congress, and the TLA's will keep getting closer to achieving their goals.

1 0

None
by Jenaer Mixmaster Anonserver 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

For your interest and amusement... London Daily Telegraph, 5/6/97 "French coders go on strike" France's 260 Foreign Ministry coders, who decipher top security messages, went on strike yesterday for the first time since their department was set up in the 1960s. The strike is over career status, the lack of recruits and the impact of new technologies. Talks are to be held tomorrow. AFP, Paris

1 0

Re: Controversial Commercial ISP for Remailer?
by ichudov＠algebra.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Dave Hayes wrote: > Igor Chudov writes: > > I am interested in your view, Dave. > > There are only two reasons that I can see your interest serving. > You either wish to support my views or oppose them. Neither case > serves your potential enlightement, therefore I shall choose to > not answer. Dave, you are a very insightful man, but in this case you were mistaken: I am interested to hear your views for my enlightenment. But your response above also serves my curiosity, no less than a more direct one, so thank you very much. - Igor.

1 0

The Executive State
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text Date: Tue, 6 May 1997 10:46:19 -0700 From: thomasu(a)mail.auburn.edu To: misesmail(a)colossus.net Subject: The Executive State Sender: owner-misesmail(a)colossus.net Precedence: Bulk The Executive State: The U.S. Presidency vs. American Liberty When President Clinton asked golfer Tiger Woods to join him at an official propaganda event, and even offered to send Air Force One, Tiger answered as every freedom-loving American should: he had something better to do. He was going on a vacation with some college chums. Tiger has his priorities straight, but his turndown is another indication that the presidency is shrinking as an institution. It still commands, but no longer compels, our undying (or dying) obedience, no matter how many monuments are erected to despots on the Washington Mall. This trend is all to the good. The legacy of presidential autocracy from the earliest days of the republic to the present survives in the form of the executive state. But where can you go in the library to find the truth about the havoc U.S. presidents have wrecked on the American promise of freedom? Virtually nowhere. The official history of the presidency reads like the Lives of the Saints. The Mises Institute intends to do something about this. In the Fall of 1998, we're holding a major academic conference on the American presidency. Our purpose is to debunk the conventional view that the more power he's usurped, the better off the American people are. All the presidents qualify for study, but we are especially interested in the checkered careers and dictates of Polk, Lincoln, McKinley, Roosevelt I, Wilson, Roosevelt II, Truman, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan. If you're a scholar and would like to participate with a paper on some aspect of a presidential power grab (or one of those few occasions when a president did some good) let us know. An abstract is all that's necessary to be considered now. The Ludwig von Mises Institute Auburn, Alabama 36849-5301 334-844-2500; fax: 334-844-2583 --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah(a)shipwright.com) Philodox e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA Lesley Stahl: "You mean *anyone* can set up a web site and compete with the New York Times?" Andrew Kantor: "Yes." Stahl: "Isn't that dangerous?" The e$ Home Page: http://www.shipwright.com/

1 0