- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

"Kids Safe" calls for mandatory blocking sw; op-ed on summit
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> Dec. 5, 1997--Saying that we must protect children from the dangers of >sexually explicit material on the Internet, a leading child-safety advocate >Friday called on Congress to enact legislation to mandate that every >computer sold in the United States by 1999 be outfitted with parental >software that can block out sexually explicit or adult Web sites. "Oh my gawd! A nipple! I'm harmed for life! I'm going to hell! Jesus doesn't like this! All for a nipple!" Um, yeah. And the far-right wackos strike again, this time in the guide of "Kids Safe." And now in addition to paying for Windoze when you buy a computer you get to pay for censorware which you don't want. What if my machine comes with Linux preinstalled? Is censorware still mandated? What if I deliberately come up with a way to purposefully break the censorware every time they release it? What if I come up with a way to get around the idiotware...err, censorware? What if I specify that I don't want them to even TOUCH my hard drive -- just stick it in the case and hand me the CDs? But the #1 reason this is stupid is: What keeps me from using an ActiveX applet to exploit the "everyone is root" "feature" in Windows to remove the censorware or, better yet, check to see if it is installed and horribly hose the system? Granted nothing keeps me from destroying the system as it stands now, but this just gives people a reason to do it other than the standard (and justified) "Windows' point and click crap has destroyed the network." And of course there are two ways to use the actual ratings for civil disobediance. You can either rate porn as "acceptable for children" or you can rate *everything* as "hard-core XXX with graphic gunshots to the head, a bunch of blood, and people cussing." The same applies for filters; I can obsfuscate trigger words (i.e. "fuck" as "fsck" or "fuq") or I can deliberately strewn them all over my pages so that people are, in effect, FORCED to turn it off to read everything from a technical paper to a FAQ for comp.lang.c. One of these days these idiots are going to learn two things: 1) You can successfully censor very little material, and 2) It pisses people off and they go out of their way to offend and put up porn. Remember back during the Exon debacle? Hell, porn was posted to Cypherpunks.

1 0

Re: NYTimes oped: Federal laws better than censorware
by Secret Squirrel 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>I think the answer to your question is that most of us find the very idea >of filterware distasteful (let alone the generally poor quality of the >implementations. However, that's much the same as I find american cars >distasteful. If somebody else wants to blow their money on one of those >pieces of crap, by all means let them. (I admit, they're slowly getting >better) This leads us to poke fun at the current systems and argue against >people actually using them, much the same way a christian friend of mine >keeps trying to get me to accept jesus into my heart and love him so that I >won't go to hell. On the other hand, we get really pissed off when >somebody tries to force us and our kids to use this crap. It doesn't >matter if it is AOL or the FBI, outside coercion is outside coercion. Or public school districts, which are arms of the government regardless of the fact that many of them have the word "independant" in their name and have a quasi-independant regulatory joke known as a "school board." Strangely enough I'm taxed to provide Internet feeds in the schools, then taxed to censor those feeds, then bitched at for not "thinking about the children" when I post to USENET, then threatened with government regulation for the same. All while the public school system is turning out people who can't read or do basic mathematics. And we still come back to the old question: Who determines what is "suitable for children?" Since I, for instance, consider absolutely no material to be "inappropriate for children" on basis of their age and I absolutely deplore censorship in all its forms I would rate everything as "suitable for children," even if that means that I have to rate a porn page as having "no nudity," or a copy of a hack and slash novel with blood and gore all over the place as "no violence." It's blatently obvious to a human that they're walking into a porn page or a copy of The Terrorist's Handbook before they actually transfer it. Since the sole purpose of automated filtering and rating systems is to censor material which some censor decides is "inappropriate" for a particular audience without any input from that audience at all, and in many cases I'm the one paying for the network feed to begin with, screw them. And I'll put whatever I want on my pages, even if that is a ratings tag, thank you. If Little Johnny is of such fragile mentality that he will be damaged for life because he sees a penis or a breast, then he was screwed already. Think of it as evolution in action. Rate falsely and watch them load.

1 0

Re: Another of Gary Burnore's Lies Exposed
by nobody＠REPLAY.COM 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Mix <mixmaster(a)remail.obscura.com> wrote: > >:gburnore@netcom.com (Gary L. Burnore) wrote: > > [clipped only the equine manure parts of Mr. Burnore's article ] > > Hmmmm. Nothing left. > > Isn't it amazing how the Anti-Privacy Mr. > Burnore thinks there is only ONE anonymous person posting to correct his ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > outrageous lies and massive disinformation? Uh, oh! Head for the hills! Our secret is out! We have all of these remailers and they only have ONE USER. <g> > Isn't it amazing how Dumbo Mr. > Burnore calls 'an asshole' all those who choose to post a dissenting opinion > anonymously? Isn't it amazing how Anti-Free Speech Mr. > Burnore demands to know all anonymous identities yet himself hides the > addresses of where he lives and works? Most control freaks like Gary Burnore and the rest of the DataBasix Gang are hypocritical about privacy. They want to invade that of others at will while protecting their own. Gary Burnore and Belinda Bryan <eridani(a)netcom.com> were worried that their UNLISTED PHONE NUMBERS might be given out, but anyone who dares criticize their actions with an "unlisted" e-mail address is an "anon asshole". OK, let's make Gary happy. If he's so worried that my asshole is "anonymous", I guess I'd better give it a name -- "Burnore" sounds about right to me. So to all control freaks -- "stick it in your Burnore". I'm still wondering what wondrous plans Gary and Belinda had for all those e-mail addresses of the users of the Huge Cajones Remailer if Jeff Burchell had turned them over to DataBasux as they had demanded. (Not just the senders but the RECIPIENTS as well!) Fortunately, Jeff was smarter than your average Burnore and didn't keep such things around to tempt DataBasix, Scientology, etc., so we'll never find out.

1 0

Why put up with KRAP?
by Adam Shostack 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Why put up with KRAP? >[Network Associates] believes that although the Key Recovery Alliance >is not in itself a political organization, membership in it has >unintended political consequences that outweigh any technical benefits >we may receive. So, this piqued my interest. What technical benefits did NA receive from participating in KRAP? Did they get any? The press release says "may receive." All Newspeak aside, does this mean that there is a secret document promising the KRAP group something? (This is what remailers and brown paper envelopes were invented for. I'm sure John Young would be happy to scan in some KRAP promises.) If there is no secret document that comes out, we have to ask ourselves, why the alliance? Did these companies really see a market demand? Did the government make promises about size of contracts it would offer to companies that shipped them KRAP? (Perhaps this relates to farming subsidies...) If so, those companies would be well advised to talk to AT&T, whose promised contracts for shipping the TSD-1300 with Clipper in place of DES never materialized. Is there a plan for interoperable KRAP? Is this going to relate to interoperable SET, where competing impulses, competing comittees, and no clear threat model or design goal lead to a spec that isn't, and a need to go back to the drawing board? the simple fact is that cryptographic security is hard enough to achieve without trying to add in layers of KRAP. So why bother? Network Associates decided it wasn't worth it. This then, becomes an open call to the charter members of the KRAP: Apple, Atalla, Digital, Bull, HP, IBM, NCR, RSA, Sun, TIS, and UPS to explain what they're doing in KRAP, what they hope to achieve, and to follow Network Associates proud example, and get the hell out. I'll advise shareholders in any KRAP companyto ask that same question: Is there a reasonable ROI on the KRA, and why are you involved? The hall of shame is on the web: http://www.kra.org/roster.html -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume

1 0

Free Net Football Game
by return＠mail2.vspn.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

http://www.vspn.net is the WEB site of an all new FREE multiplayer football game for the internet. http://www.vspn.net/DownloadArea.htm for download. Play the wide receiver, quarterback, or fullback while others from all over the world play their positions. All in real-time 3D first person perspective. And it's FREE for the remainder of the beta test period. You like football? You like games? You'll LOVE VSPN. No need to reply as this is the only notice we will be sending.

1 0

A little proffessional advice required
by Jyri Poldre 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Hello everyone. Some time (Actually some years) ago there was a discussion about Cryptographic device being devoloped in Estonia. Well now we have some real results to share. I will include a short description with some questions. Hope to hear from you all soon. As a result of scientific research project a team in Tallinn Technical University has developed a cryptographic processor. The first phase of the project has been a success. It ended with a prototype and presentation at NORCHIP'97 conference. Now the team is specifying the tasks for second phase of the project. If you have some time to answer to few questions, we would be extremely pleased. The data could help us to create a real circuit for solving real problems not just one for satisfying academic curiosity :) The circuit is a programmable modular arithmetic calculator and IDEA block cipher. ALU is 96 bits wide and is shared between IDEA and modular calculations. The circuit contains RAM for storing key exchange data, total of 16 registers. Two of them are used for Internal ALU calculations, 2 for storing expanded IDEA keys and one for several small 32 bit variables (cycle counter, upper parts of expanded IDEA keys, raw IDEA keys, & so on). Currently modular calculations length is 768 Bits. We have produced a test circuit and got the following results: Technology: Atmel ES2 1.0um 2 Metal CMOS, standard cell, 50 Kgates Speed: 20 MHz Modular exponent time: 0.1 Sec ( currently 768 Bits ) IDEA speed 20 Mbit/Sec All these results are also at: www.pld.ttu.ee/~prj/norchip.html Now we are designing a new circuit, what should provide some real interest to encrypting devices users. The obvious things to do with the previous circuit are: Add Second ALU, RAM, redesign datapath and use faster technology for Longer modular calculations ( 2*768 bits ) Faster exponent using 2 ALUS in parallel and CRT 100 Mbit/sec IDEA speed In pursuit of perfection we must keep in mind the penalty of silicon area, lower yields, longer devolopment time and thus higher price. Question 1: How much speed would be reasonable enough for both IDEA and modular exponent? Question 2: The second question concerns external interface. What protocol if any should we include into the circuit? The RS232 strikes as a first possible solution for smart card applications. Could there be some other common interfaces that we should consider including into the circuit? Sincerely, Tallinn Technical University, Design and Test laboratory, IDEXP circuit design team.

1 0

Court TV
by Cindy Cohn 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Court TV informs me that they will hold the tape of the argument until a decision is reached and will only show it afterwards. Also, they won't send us the whole thing, even after they've aired the segment, only the parts that make it into their program. Cindy ************************ Cindy A. Cohn McGlashan & Sarrail, P. C. 177 Bovet Road, 6th Floor San Mateo, CA 94402 (415) 341-2585 (tel) (415)341-1395 (fax) Cindy(a)McGlashan.com http://www.McGlashan.com

2 1

A message with a key to be posted later
by Jonathan Wienke 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: PGP for Business Security 5.5 pQQUWkSzhyh18H9mQJc7BcsnrhejW3+xsVHHVZ1EaJeJJh/KIR4uoCcPCnBfqru/ 5+z1CjJKYhyEq5+O6vgq3b/Z7cWteVrXdbH0rD12G7P/iFaeYVM3tztsINpjT48O vd53BlxGrjugMiWzfFg7wFXhfnyvkjKudLw09eBrivQBDE8C1VGpmx4XqarZR3Zx zYIK5n6NfgGHN1EFOw2mhPX/1OXnVoB1t1eIXm7NC3/Ym+U7WV1Qca+1/FAi+I2a 0mmKdEZIIXYALXztkDQiAz4qh0+d7KuhjQZVAS6HLyWztRXCOaG/uAHmyW9sf+y6 f1O6cBvrDPhNTHpM8QjNFgSBPmlLY9Kn6pR+WWfKLbAac19mSWudhsejUCqkYCuX ZZio7vzMxuws2h0x4hReGuX3awbcXtDX858VxGoAmO4moQIz8Ps0NA9z9SW73erT Hj42/fgmE6ZaX9vXubmMKVvfDm9U3KceePKEptEJQVDwsqUjSdIjbzShI/SDai20 sf6Fq7595f3dJ0BdUbqYZhWU3aHyZJMy+AhL/HAmYevUKnKVEPqaZpQMTtB5IbmN TEe76jDdJN7fQG35MkFjn0y4gsYeOqXZ3An/9dwOOWDpW0udXPl0NE/ZWqjE7Mo4 zAqAYzyosjkd283ZDy36s92581fXRLqf2WX0tbgiYWcSHVwRj4ZYDEXV2SEsK9rR BXii5TIENG6zJbU6Nk6FjcZXpcHc0vVQO77Qn7y0OfM+7eiy436PXHVo8J+QP9Ls HYEALbk2e7i4oA6eyEEJ1fQfY4voKZ4FlthqjyAqYu2vcAStXkdpMArXQ+ZqZHMK VwRn3Ov5UzN/4jSFRTuy3x8DgZV8plwpp62cGJiRvbCZH4sxdAyNHMsz7CEvl+Nf gxHaKcvN8cyEZmG0GUUauw13txJJ+TNzLqIYAMWliDQC8M03v4lMl4kNtnv9c8Rw /1LtZtnh2lYPvvjR1xqzD0hUC/A/PdiQjJtAIgEJr9di6SI9sUjd90+pSlMTs1ST dk11CDYzY6VcQvKGLpWGxSwAci7NAnLr9Ge2ZkMRmigR4Ilhe3mFqe4N+8CnS3sF 8OsO/ZoJta4PbguZH/qgI//ji1E+JBx2seUq6tdjNJRgm/I22+dfAHxiXMeC1fAp adrXPHy1ZRpeFOkurnI9ZofA5QnGuc4VlamlxqxqbGd2TmroKHDxM8w+HJ4zkv2I boYiemaPtMmmDShdLPL3klxiDYJJaiugEhic/dx6D5ZRyqVazEBM6OFxIbrxaEob /8hwQglmTEQwJgX0TKVwbtjd2ZCjtOjZQiZ6GPQPxHW+3C+DcokOCGMsT8TRSO9X 4TaGzQYUY1fNDLqyeltoDLDfB3Xhp8s7tMDIb7BgBa0lNkaO4stg =0JK4 -----END PGP MESSAGE----- Jonathan Wienke PGP Key Fingerprints: 7484 2FB7 7588 ACD1 3A8F 778A 7407 2928 3312 6597 8258 9A9E D9FA 4878 C245 D245 EAA7 0DCC "If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -- Samuel Adams "Stupidity is the one arena of of human achievement where most people fulfill their potential." -- Jonathan Wienke Never sign a contract that contains the phrase "first-born child." RSA export-o-matic: print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

3 3

Re: Remailer Trivia / Re: Singapore & Freedom
by Charlie Comsec 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jim Choate <ravage(a)ssz.com> wrote: > > I find it interesting that most of the people who refer to anonymous > > posters as "hiding behind" or "hiding behind the skirts of" something > > usually have unlisted telephone numbers when you try to do a search > > for them. <g> I wonder why "hiding behind" an unlisted telephone number > > is considered acceptable but having an "unlisted" e-mail address is not > > considered acceptable? > > > > BTW, do you "hide behind" clothes when you walk on the street? If so, why? > > Got something to hide? Huh? COWARD!!!! <g> > > Public anonymity and having an unlisted phone number are not even the same > thing. An unlisted phone number is to reduce public exposure, anonymity is > to enhance public exposure and secure plausible deniability. To have an > analogous situation you would need to use a *listed* phone number registered > to anonymous in such a way that ANI displayed the number but any directory > search resulted in anonymous w/ no address or other tracing info even for > the phone company. To the best of my knowledge no phone company anywhere > will allow a customer to purchase service without identifying themselves to > the phone company. Please let me know if there is such a beast somewhere. That analogy is faulty. The issue is the (claimed) need to provide an e-mail address when communicating via usenet, or some other public forum. Since the chosen communications medium is usenet (or a public mailing list like this), you can reply to me via that same medium. An e-mail address is only required if I want E-MAIL replies in response to my post. So, in that regard, a telephone number would fall into the same category. I'd only feel obliged to include a phone number in my posts if I wanted people to contact me via TELEPHONE. Sending anonymous e-mail to a person is more analogous to sending snail mail without a return address. It would be a form of one-way communications, unlike an anonymous PUBLIC post where a public reply is still possible. If you want to use the telephone analogy, then what you're talking about is akin to a pay phone that's not traceable back to an individual. ANI or caller ID would show the number of the pay phone itself, just like anonymous e-mail from a remailer shows the return address of the remailer rather than the sender. (For the majority of internet users, calling someone anonymously on a payphone is probably simpler than figuring out how to use a remailer, so the convenience of being able to call anonymously FROM HOME is not really required.) BTW, while this post does contain a replyable e-mail address, I'm not soliciting e-mail replies and I can't even guarantee that a reply to my return address would reach me, due to the uncertainty of 'nym reply blocks these days. For all anyone knows, all return e-mail could be forwarded to /dev/null@somewhere. > Generaly people wear clothes because it is convenient and required by social > mores and legal statute. Exactly. And yet many on usenet would deny that same CONVENIENCE to anonymous usenet posters. Sure, anonymous posting can be "abused" just as people can conceal illegal weapons under their clothing. But the answer to that is not to require public nudity just to protect against "clothing abuse". I guess a better analogy would be a nudist colony where both nudity and clothing are acceptable. And the de facto censors of anonymous posts would turn Usenet into a nudist colony where clothing was FORBIDDEN, or at least where the wearers of clothing were ridiculed and insulted. > Put your money where you mouth is, send your bank acct. no. & PIN to the > list....come on, you can trust US. As I'd tell someone (if I were posting anonymously) "you go first". <g> A couple of times an anonymous poster has offered "if you want my e-mail address, give me your home phone number and I'll phone you and give it to you". Strange, but I've never seen such an offer accepted. <g> - --- Finger <comsec(a)nym.alias.net> for PGP public key (Key ID=19BE8B0D) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.3i Charset: noconv iQEVAwUBNI1CDQbp0h8ZvosNAQGFaAf/RrBdyP7JwwLkoudJ/tgS5dUMx+uOxZ1q 29AfX7rVAARcjJeA+6+a+uScPiy0mr9j8faL8+Qd78/jbKiqDRlZoJykrCfievUW /iklLAAI7aU09ctFlFO0ys2qk5CSOEf1UYpWlZu++L47r5A7OwXhAKhJ86Szhg+M LjYHg71dPUgrqLyDTyA7ldsAbFmXE7WyLbWD1y5AeURzOOV4kXlYGMkjduNIZwyj MrQ27L+NiG8+ruQ1eBIdqxtGiieVqzjQk83uLQRBEphiac+I+S7GHTAGo5YvlkSQ SudLPKR+G9UAFMVyRZklwMkmawPifwKYZIVL0ZiMeI/EkWWyPZrhkQ== =Lw+P -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: [MORE] Re: A Pretty Good Story
by Declan McCullagh 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:41 -0500 12/9/97, Lynne L. Harrison wrote: >Citing unintended political consequences, Network Associates - the new >owner of PGP - has withdrawn from the Key Recovery Alliance. Um, yes. This is exactly what I wrote in my article yesterday. ("The McAfee-PGP combo, called Network Associates, has dropped out of the alliance") Zimmermann didn't even know McAfee was in it until late last week. -Declan

1 0