- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: expiration dates on cryptography
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

[ Hmmm, maybe I'd better get this message out quickly, before it expires... :-] At 07:21 AM 11/8/95 -0500, John Curtis <jbell(a)capecod.net> wrote: >The discussion between Mr. May and Mr. Shields concerning >time-release cryptography raised an interesting question in my >mind. > >Given that trust is often of an ephemeral nature, it would be >quite useful to set time limits on secrets. Would it be possible >to cryptographically protect a secret such that it could not be >decrypted after a certain time? Decryption is equivalent to knowing a secret plus doing some work. There are two ways to make information available/unavailable - by depending on calculations from known data, or by having people agree to publish/delete it. The former method is trustable, but doesn't have time built in to it - either you know stuff or you don't. The latter method is harder to trust - you can build contractual mechanisms to encourage people to keep their commitments, and use crypto methods like splitting shared secrets to limit the impact of some of them not keeping them - but it's basically not cryptographic. Getting people to keep information secret for a while and then publish is possible; that's within their control. Getting people to keep information public, and then delete all the copies they own is possible, but if the information is _public_, anybody in the world could have a copy - deleting it requires finding them all, and getting them all to agree to delete it. That's _much_ harder. You could build a system where an escrow agent keeps a piece of information private, but available upon request, and deletes it on a certain date. That lets you know that _if_ nobody's asked for the information by then, and the agent has done its job, that nobody else will be able to decrypt it. Again, you can secret-share among multiple agents to decrease the impact of defaults (either failure-to-delete or failure-to-deliver.) A related approach is for the agent to provide a service of decrypting data encrypted with the agent's public key, and agreeing only to decrypt data before or after some date specified in the message. Another technique you can use is to for the agent to keep the data until paid for delivery; the retrieval token includes a digital check with an expiration date. In this case, you're trusting the bank to not honor the check after its expiration date, and the escrow agent not to deliver the data without getting paid. For this service, you want checks rather than cash - if the check goes stale, the money is still in your account. #-- # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, Freelance Information Architect, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com # Phone +1-510-247-0663 Pager/Voicemail 1-408-787-1281

1 0

Re: PGP Comment feature weakens remailer security
by Patrick J. LoPresti 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- bill.stewart> So, for safety, either turn off PGP comments before bill.stewart> using it with remailers, or wipe out the comments by bill.stewart> hand before each layer of encryption (easy to do with bill.stewart> GUI-based systems like Private Idaho; I don't know if bill.stewart> premail lets you do this or not.) Incidentally, Mailcrypt's remailer support strips the comment field after each encryption, and has done so since version 3.2. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface iQCVAwUBMKEmVHr7ES8bepftAQEPSgP9FJYeKUSZKyFN/VWIwLjKIaDVzPtzyqHR tbj1UqbDl1trrKCoV6uud5qfK/FQwqQylnv1YsYNIVPPav66ImUvgSaXUMvZJBvC 8vinQI66s3M1PBJ8VIaLuVtay826JDazGHEexHpDLwNVGLdJq0RrNLVr2H9oLA8g 5aE9MHVfAcM= =MdHQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Re: expiration dates on cryptography
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 12:21 PM 11/8/95, John Curtis wrote: >The discussion between Mr. May and Mr. Shields concerning >time-release cryptograhy raised an interesting question in my >mind. > >Given that trust is often of an ephemeral nature, it would be >quite useful to set time limits on secrets. Would it be possible >to cryptographically protect a secret such that it could not be >decrypted after a certain time? An interesting twist. There are two broad things to consider: 1. Cryptography, what can mathematically be done. 2. Economics and social systems, what "business ecologies" can do. Pure cryptography is about #1, with minimal consideration of #2. Much of what interests me involves #2. How this relates to your interesting question goes as follows. Even the "timed-release cryptography" is NOT a pure cryptographic system, as the idea of "temporal state" in crypto is iffy. That is, clocks can be jiggered. Even "sealed clocks" can be jiggered. But just as Haber and Stornetta's "digital timestamps" use time, such a thing is possible once _economic agents_ enter the picture. And once economic considerations are used. The "timed-release crypto" system depends for its security on the likelihood that N agents holding pieces of something--something they don't know the value of--will likely hold those pieces for as long as they are being paid. (If you want to discuss why this is likely, even in a world of mistrust and malice, we can discuss it.) "Self-destruct crypto" would work roughly the same way: -- N agents holding pieces of puzzle, contracted to destroy those pieces on such-and-such date. It is likely that some or even all of them would comply, if properly paid. Caveats: 1. Sure, they could make backups. Probably do. But just as archival files are shredded, a system for eliminating "expired" files would be possible. 2. Sure, they could cheat. Ditto for "timed-release crypto." (Time is symmetric for this problem.) 3. Again, the security of the system to a large extent depends on the N agents not knowing what the pieces are part of, nor knowing who the other holders are. They never know whether a given piece is part of an audit, a test, etc. 4. There is a slight asymmetry, despite what I said, in that one can "test" agents to see if they'll release their pieces as contractually obligated to, but one can never be sure that agents have actually destroyed their pieces. 5. Still, distributing a secret amongst, say, 30 agents and having them "agree" to destroy their pieces on January 20, 2002, seems pretty likely to result in the collective secret (n-out-of-m pieces) being recoverable after that date. Such a system would need more consideration of backup strategies, etc. (If everyone is carefully backing up and the backup tapes are somewhere, then quite clearly the secret would not be gone; hence the issue of backup strategies.) >I suspect that the laws of thermodynamics might prohibit this >in classical cryptography because as a message expired the >amount of entropy would decrease. Quantum cryptography >might work, but that will be science fiction for some time to >come. I'm always interested in the links between information theory, algorithmic complexity, and notions of entropy, but I am skeptical in the extreme that the "laws of thermodynamics" have anything to do with whether one can throw away bits. If I make a list on my computer, and then erase it, have I violated a "law of thermodynamics"? Of course not. --Tim May Views here are not the views of my Internet Service Provider or Government. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^756839 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."

3 2

"Industry Group Rebuffs U.S. on Encryption" (NYT 8Nov95, C3)
by John Gilmore 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

A group of 37 companies and trade and privacy associations sent a letter to Al Gore yesterday, complaining about Clipper-II and crypto export controls, and promising to send their own policy proposals to Congress and the Administration within six months. It's a short story. I'll leave the exact text to John Young :-). I've heard that there's a better story in the Washington Post today, too. I expect we'll see the letter itself within a day or two. John Gilmore

1 0

ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update: Nov. 8, 1995
by ACLUNATL＠aol.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

----------------------------------------------------------------- November 8, 1995 ACLU CYBER-LIBERTIES UPDATE A bi-weekly e-zine on cyber-liberties cases and controversies at the state and federal level. ----------------------------------------------------------------- IN THIS ISSUE: * ACLU Statement and ACTION ALERT on Federal Wiretap Bill * ACTION ALERT on Federal Online Indecency Legislation * State Utility Commissions Consider Online Access and Privacy Issues * News on Electronic Access to Public Information in Washington State * John Perry Barlow Launches Cyberspace Lecture Series Co-Sponsored by the ACLU of Washington * ACLU Student Chapter President at Georgetown University Law Center Writes About Marty Rimm Controversy * Conferences * Online Resources from the ACLU National Office and State Affiliates ----------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL PAGE (Congress/Agency/Court Cases) ----------------------------------------------------------------- * ACLU Statement and ACTION ALERT on Federal Wiretap Bill Last week, the ACLU emphatically urged the FBI to withdraw its proposal for greatly increased wiretapping powers. "Given the government's own statements on the usefulness of wiretaps, we can only guess at the FBI's motives," said Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU's National Washington Office. "But if Congress were to allow this system to go into place, we'd have a national surveillance apparatus that would pale in comparison to the infamous security state of the former Soviet Union." "This proposal, Murphy added, "would make the KGB look like privacy advocates." "The proposal would dramatically reduce the privacy rights in the United States because it would -- no matter what the Justice Department says -- result in significant increase in the number of innocent third party conversations intercepted by law enforcement officials," Murphy said. "Already too many innocent conversations -- nearly two million in the last year alone -- are intercepted by federal and local law enforcement wiretaps." According to the government's own statistics, 1,800 innocent conversations are intercepted each and every time a wiretap or other form of electronic surveillance is placed. Just last week, the ACLU joined with the National Rifle Association and a broad coalition of other gun advocates and civil liberties organizations in calling for Congress to institute a 24-point reform plan for federal law enforcement. In a letter to Congress, the groups said that the excesses of Waco and Ruby Ridge demonstrate that Congress and the Administration must begin to reign in the powers of federal police authorities. [The 24-point reform plan and related documents are available on America Online, at keyword ACLU, under "federal law enforcement reforms." For an e-mailed copy of the reform plan, send a message to infoaclu(a)aclu.org with "fed law enforcement reform" in the subject line.] URGENT ACTION NEEDED: -Call the FBI at 202-252-7296 and urge it to withdraw the proposed wiretapping system. You can also find the phone number of the FBI's local field offices at the FBI web site at http://www.fbi.gov. -Call the Attorney General at 202-514-2001 and urge her to order the FBI to withdraw its wiretapping proposal. -Call your members of Congress and tell them to urge the Justice Department and the FBI to withdraw the wiretap proposal. Urge your representatives to oppose any funding for this wiretap scheme. You can reach the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 for the Senate and 202-225-3121 for the House of Representatives. -Call Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA), a former federal prosecutor and leading opponent of funding effots for wiretap: Rep. Bob Barr U.S. House of Representatives 1607 Longworth Building Washington, DC 20515 (202) 225-2931 -Call your own telephone companies, both local and long distance, and urge them to oppose the wiretap proposal and to stand up for the privacy rights of their customers instead of becoming the snooping arm of a prying government. ----------------------------------------------------------------- * ACTION ALERT on Federal Online Indecency Legislation The conference committee on the telecommunications bill will soon consider whether to remove provisions that would make "indecency" a crime in cyberspace. On Monday, November 6, we distributed an action alert urging individuals to call Congress to express opposition to any measures to censor the Net. THIS MAY BE YOUR LAST CHANCE TO STOP UNCONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS ON YOUR RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH IN CYBERSPACE!! [You can find the action alert on America Online, at keyword ACLU, under "threats to civil liberties in cyberspace," or on the Internet at http://www.vtw.org/] In addition to the call to action for individual Net users, the ACLU and People for the American Way obtained signatures from over 75 organizations to a letter opposing the federal online indecency provisions. The letter will be sent to Senator Pressler and Representative Bliley on the conference committee later this week. [After 11/13, you can find a copy of the organizational letter on America Online, at keyword ACLU, under "threats to civil liberties in cyberspace." To receive a copy of the letter via e-mail, send a message to infoaclu(a)aclu.org with "organizations opposed to online censorship" in the subject line.] The ACLU continues to prepare for a constitutional challenge to the online censorship provisions if they become law. Please contact Ann Beeson, beeson(a)aclu.org, if your organization is interested in being a plaintiff in this ground-breaking litigation that will define First Amendment rights in cyberspace. ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE PAGE (Legislation/Agency/Court Cases) ----------------------------------------------------------------- * State Utility Commissions Consider Online Access and Privacy Issues Many state utilities commissions are considering issues that can affect your online access and privacy rights, from approving caller ID to defining universal access. Online users are urged to stay informed and involved in utilities commission decisions in their states that may affect cyberspace rights. Consumer Project on Technology has put up a list of information about state utility commissions. The list includes contact information for all 50 state utility commissions, and also lists utility consumer advocates in 40 states. See http://www.essential.org/cpt/isdn/contacts.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- * News on Electronic Access to Public Information in Washington State A Washington State task force has been examining the issue of electronic access to information maintained by government agencies. The ACLU of Washington submitted comments commending the task force for requiring some form of free electronic access, and limiting all fees to incremental costs. But the task force was criticized for not paying sufficient attention to privacy, especially increased threats to privacy presented by accumulation of information on individuals from diverse sources. Also in Washington State, King County Superior Court Judge George Finkle ruled that Geographical Information System databases are public records and must be made available to the public for nominal copying fees. (GIS systems are databases that contain information associated with a physical location, such as the location of utility cables, public buildings, roads, demographic information, zoning info, or traffic density.) As in many locations around the country, the City of Bellevue had attempted to charge far higher fees for GIS databases, which were created for government use but also have commercial value. This ruling reaffirms the notion that public information should be available to all, not just those with deep pockets. ----------------------------------------------------------------- * John Perry Barlow Launches Cyberspace Lecture Series Co-Sponsored by the ACLU of Washington The ACLU of Washington began a series of talks in Seattle to explore the impact and implications of the technology revolution on art and culture. John Perry Barlow, former Grateful Dead lyricist and co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, launched the series on November 3rd. "Cyberspace is largely about conversation that ultimately could include everybody on the planet . . . . Cyberspace can be the greatest venue for freedom of expression humans have ever had," said Barlow. Barlow talked of the spiritual dimension of cyberspace, which he sees as an egalitarian ecosystem with the potential to link "every synapse on the planet." For him cyberspace must be a place where anybody can say anything they think without fear of reprisal. But he tempered his lyrical vision of cyberculture with a warning of the dangers of censorship from elected officials who do not appreciate -- or even understand -- how new forms of communication function. "When I visit Congress, I feel like Tom Paine in the Court of King George," Barlow quipped. ----------------------------------------------------------------- * ACLU-Georgetown University Law Center President Writes Articles on the Marty Rimm controversy Alan Lewine, President of the ACLU student chapter at GULC, has written a series of articles for the Georgetown Law Weekly on the Georgetown Law Journal's involvement in the controversial publication of Marty Rimm's purported study of net porn. They are available at http://www.tripod.com/userland/A/alewine/index.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- CONFERENCES ----------------------------------------------------------------- Nov 8, 6 pm: "Regulating the Internet: Should Pornography Have A Free Ride on the Information Superhighway?" Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, 55 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York. Panelists include Nadine Strossen, National President, ACLU; Bill Burrington, Staff Counsel of the Electronic Frontier Foundation; and Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Law School. Sponsored by the Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal. Nov 16, 5 pm: Nadine Strossen (National President, ACLU) speaks on "Defending Pornography: A Feminist Perspective on New Technologies and Old-Fashioned Sex," GULC, 600 New Jersey NW, 12th Floor Ballroom, Gewirz Hall. Co-sponsored by ACLU-GULC and the Student Bar Association Speakers Fund. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ONLINE RESOURCES FROM THE ACLU NATIONAL OFFICE ----------------------------------------------------------------- Stay tuned for news on the ACLU's world wide web site, under construction at http://www.aclu.org. America Online users should check out our live chats, auditorium events, *very* active message boards, and complete news on civil liberties, at keyword ACLU. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ONLINE RESOURCES FROM ACLU STATE AFFILIATES ----------------------------------------------------------------- Florida: ACLU of Pinellas County Florida http://www.stpt.usf.edu/~greek/aclu.html Illinois: Illinois Civil Liberties Union http://www.aclu-il.org/ Champaign County, Illinois ACLU Chapter http://www.prairienet.org/cc-aclu/ (The chapter also maintains an Illinois Civil Liberties Alert List. To subscribe send a message to cla(a)prairienet.org) Indiana: Indiana Civil Liberties Union http://www.inetdirect.net/iclu/ South Carolina: ACLU of South Carolina http://www.cris.com/~katrinan/aclu/index.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update Editor: Ann Beeson (beeson(a)aclu.org) American Civil Liberties Union National Office 132 West 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 To subscribe to the ACLU Cyber-Liberties Update, send a message to infoaclu(a)aclu.org with "subscribe Cyber-Liberties Update" in the subject line of your message. To terminate your subscription, send a message to infoaclu(a)aclu.org with "unsubscribe Cyber-Liberties Update" in the subject line. For general information about the ACLU, write to infoaclu(a)aclu.org. ----------------------------------------------------------------- **PLEASE REPOST WITH HEADER INTACT**

1 0

The source code of corrected RC2
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

There was a mistake in the source code of RC2 that I did a mailbox on January 21 '1998. The following is the source code of corrected RC2. RC2 C++ source code #include <string.h> #include <assert.h> void RC2Keyschedule::schedule( unsigned short K[64], const unsigned char L[128], unsigned T8, unsigned TM ) { unsigned char x; unsigned i; static const unsigned char PITABLE[256] = { 217,120,249,196, 25,221,181,237, 40,233,253,121, 74,160,216,157, 198,126, 55,131, 43,118, 83,142, 98, 76,100,136, 68,139,251,162, 23,154, 89,245,135,179, 79, 19, 97, 69,109,141, 9,129,125, 50, 189,143, 64,235,134,183,123, 11,240,149, 33, 34, 92,107, 78,130, 84,214,101,147,206, 96,178, 28,115, 86,192, 20,167,140,241,220, 18,117,202, 31, 59,190,228,209, 66, 61,212, 48,163, 60,182, 38, 111,191, 14,218, 70,105, 7, 87, 39,242, 29,155,188,148, 67, 3, 248, 17,199,246,144,239, 62,231, 6,195,213, 47,200,102, 30,215, 8,232,234,222,128, 82,238,247,132,170,114,172, 53, 77,106, 42, 150, 26,210,113, 90, 21, 73,116, 75,159,208, 94, 4, 24,164,236, 194,224, 65,110, 15, 81,203,204, 36,145,175, 80,161,244,112, 57, 153,124, 58,133, 35,184,180,122,252, 2, 54, 91, 37, 85,151, 49, 45, 93,250,152,227,138,146,174, 5,223, 41, 16,103,108,186,201, 211, 0,230,207,225,158,168, 44, 99, 22, 1, 63, 88,226,137,169, 13, 56, 52, 27,171, 51,255,176,187, 72, 12, 95,185,177,205, 46, 197,243,219, 71,229,165,156,119, 10,166, 32,104,254,127,193,173 }; assert(len > 0 && len <= 128); assert(bits <= 1024); if (!bits) bits = 1024; memcpy(xkey, key, len); for (i = 0; i < 128; i++) { L[i] = PITABLE[L[i-1] + L[i-T]]; } T8 = (T1+7) >> 3; TM = 255 MOD 2^(8 + T1 - 8*T8); L[128-T8] = PITABLE[L[128-T8] & TM]; for (i = 0; i < 127-T8; i++) { L[i] = PITABLE[L[i+1] XOR L[i+T8]]; }; i = 63; K[i] = L[2*i] + 256*L[2*i+1]; }; void RC2Encryption::ProcessBlock( const unsigned short K[64], ) { unsigned R3, R2, R1, R0, i; for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) { R0 += (R1 & ~R3) + (R2 & R3) + K[4*i+0]; R0 = R0 << 1; R1 += (R2 & ~R0) + (R3 & R0) + K[4*i+1]; R1 = R1 << 2; R2 += (R3 & ~R1) + (R0 & R1) + K[4*i+2]; R2 = R2 << 3; R3 += (R0 & ~R2) + (R1 & R2) + K[4*i+3]; R3 = R3 << 5; if (i == 4 || i == 10) { R0 += K[R3 & 63]; R1 += K[R0 & 63]; R2 += K[R1 & 63]; R3 += K[R2 & 63]; } } void RC2Decryption::ProcessBlock( const unsigned short K[64], ) { unsigned R3, R2, R1, R0, i; for (i = 0; i < 16; i++) { R3 = R3 << 5; R3 += (R0 & ~R2) + (R1 & R2) + K[4*i-3]; R2 = R2 << 3; R2 += (R3 & ~R1) + (R0 & R1) + K[4*i-2]; R1 = R1 << 2; R1 += (R2 & ~R0) + (R3 & R0) + K[4*i-1]; R0 = R0 << 1; R0 += (R1 & ~R3) + (R2 & R3) + K[4*i-0]; if (i == 4 || i == 10) { R3 -= K[R2 & 63]; R2 -= K[R1 & 63]; R1 -= K[R0 & 63]; R0 -= K[R3 & 63]; } }

1 0

Industry Group Rebuffs U.S. on Encryption
by John Young 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

The New York Times, November 8, 1995. Industry Group Rebuffs U.S. On Encryption By John Markoff The campaign by the Clinton Administration to create a standard for data encryption acceptable to industry, civil liberties and law enforcement groups broke down yesterday when a group including some of the nation's most powerful technology companies rejected a compromise proposal. The aim is to set a policy that meets the needs of electronic commerce as well as the concerns of the National Security Agency and other Federal offices that are opposed to the proliferation of data-coding software, feeling it will make it impossible for them to gather intelligence overseas. The Administration offered a compromise plan and had been seeking comment from the public. But the industry coalition said yesterday that it found the Government unwilling to compromise. Thus, the group of 37 companies said, it would formulate its own policy proposal to present to the White House and to Congress in the next six months. High-technology industries want a data-coding standard secure enough that both businesses and overseas customers could use it for sensitive financial and business correspondence. They seek a longer and more powerful encryption key than the Government is willing to grant, and object to Government demands that law enforcement agencies have "back-door" access to such transmissions that would allow them to intercept coded messages. The letter is signed by several of the country's leading computer, software and on-line companies, among them America Online, Apple Computer, AT&T, Eastman Kodak I.B.M.'s Lotus Development division, MCI Communications, Microsoft, Novell, Oracle Sybase and Tandem Computers. On Aug. 17, the Administration proposed a liberalization of export-control procedures for "key escrow" software products, or those providing law-enforcement access. "The current policy directive also does not address the need for immediate liberalization of current export restrictions," the letter said "Such liberalization is vital to enable U.S. companies to export state-of-the-art software products during the potentially lengthy process of developing and adopting a comprehensive national cryptography policy." [End] ---------- The Washington Post, November 8, 1995 Encryption Control Plan Sparks Industry Protest High-Tech Groups Say Proposals Unworkable By Elizabeth Corcoran High-technology companies and advocacy groups are writing to Vice President Gore and House Speaker Newt Gingrich to protest what they contend are unworkable federal proposals for controllng the export of data scrambling technology. The letters deepen an industry-government rift that began only days after federal officials unveiled an outline of what they hoped would be a palatable plan at an industry meeting in August. Two separate coalitions are criticizing the administration's draft proposal, which the government circulated on the Internet on Monday. Current export regulations prohibit companies froan sending overseas any encryption, or data-scrambling technology, that exceeds a certain degree of sophistication. The government argues that it needs to be able to peek at messages and files with proper court authorization -- to do its job of protecting U.S. citizens from terrorist groups and other malevolent organizations. In July, some French students demonstrated they could readily break the type of encryption technology that the U.S. government lets companies export. In August, the administration said it would let companies include more complex types of encryption, provided they pledged to entrust to an authorized agent a "spare key," or the means for unscrambling the information. Unlike early proposals in which the government said it would hold such keys, the administration is suggesting that companies and individuals would be able to select private keyholders, much the way people pick their banks. But after a brief honeymoon, industry and civil liberties groups began to find flaws with the details in the new proposals. This week's letters indicate that whatever fragile compromise the government had hoped it had found has grown even weaker. One coalition, pulled together by the Washington advocacy group Center for Democracy and Technology, includes about three dozen high-tech companies and associations. The group has promised to draft an alternative plan within six months. "There is a very serious message here: that national security can't be controlling the Internet," said Jerry Berman, executive director of the center. "There are other issues, global competitiveness and privacy, that need to be placed in the balance -- and the administration's policy doesn't do that." A second coalition of about 10 free-market and libertarian groups, led by another policy group, Americans for Tax Reform, plans to send their letter to Gingrich in the next day or two. The group contends the administration's encryption proposals are an encroachment on citizens' civil rights. The administration's proposals would not restrict tbe encryption technologies that people use within U.S. boundaries. But it would require that if they electronically send an encrypted message to parties outside the United States, a spare key must be stored with an authorized agency. "Even though we recognize [the administration] has worked hard on its proposals, it's not the right direction," said Rebecca Gould, director of policy at the Business Software Alliance, a trade association of software firms. "We've been in this [debate] since July 1994," she added, a long time for companies that churn out a new version of most products every 18 months. "That means lost sales for us and a loss of U.S. industry sales abroad." [End] ---------- Both slipped by gummed eyes, thx gnu.

1 0

Re: Kooks and their Kookies
by dlv＠bwalk.dm.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I have used Eric's Cookie Jar proxy to filter out cookies (it's located at > http://www.lne.com/ericm/cookie_jar/ ) and modified it to replace > advertisement images with a small jpeg image of a tin of spam. (Cookie > Jar's behavior is to simply close the connection which results in a > "broken" icon in my browser. The user is unable to discern the difference > between a broken picture vs. a piece of intentionally ignored spam.) I did > it by returning the spam can instead of an advertising banner when > requested, but I probably could have accomplished the same thing by > modifying the incoming HTML to have an IMG SRC of Junkbuster, which I've been playing with, too has just a list of URL patterns that are blocked. When it encounters such an URL, it displays this hardcoded spiel: char CBLOCK[] = "HTTP/1.0 202 Request for blocked URL\n" "Pragma: no-cache\n" "Last-Modified: Thu Jul 31, 1997 07:42:22 pm GMT\n" "Expires: Thu Jul 31, 1997 07:42:22 pm GMT\n" "Content-Type: text/html\n\n" "<html>\n" "<head>\n" "<title>Internet Junkbuster: Request for blocked URL</title>\n" "</head>\n" WHITEBG "<center>" "<a href=http://internet.junkbuster.com/ij-blocked-url?%s+%s+%s>" BANNER "</a>" "</center>" "</body>\n" "</html>\n" ; Notice something unpleasant!!! See the 2 %s's? They are filled with 1) the URL you tried to access, 2) the pattern from the blockfile that matched. But they're not just displayed in your browser; only if you click on the junkbuster logo, they are passed to a cgi script at the junkbusters site, which displays them and possibly logs them. Not nice at all. I'd much prefer a filtering proxy that allowed different actions for different patterns in the block file: at the very least, the choices should be "404 not found", "403 verbotten", a 1x1 jpg, and a user-specified replacement text/url. > http://localhost/spam.jpg. I was really trying to write code to eliminate > the entire spam anchor, but found that identifying the matching start and > end of the spam anchor (in PERL) was more work than it was worth, and was > breaking some HTML. The ability to edit the incoming text and pictures to delete embedded ads would be awfully nice. Consider for example the html dynamically generated by wired's cgi script when you access http://stocks.hotbox.com. (take a look at it). Wouldn't it be nice if the proxy could be told to delete or replace all the text between  and ??? Occasionally an ad is embedded in a picture together with some useful information. Take a look at http://www.bloomberg.com/gifs/iview.gif. it has both useful information that should be displayed and sponsor informaion that should be mercilessly censored - replaced by a user-specified graphic or at least a black rectangle. > Anyway, yes, keep posting your lists of evil URLs. I have no moral problem > with trashing those unwanted ads. Instead of spamming the mailing list, I've put up a web page at http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/6354 (let's see if they pull the plug on it) > >Would there be any interest if I put an anootated netscape cookie file > >(cypherpunks cookie potluck) someplace like geocitie.com? I have also placed some cookies for sharing on them same web site. > >Also a composite blockfile for junkbusters and other filtering proxies. > > > >A really neat feature for ad-filtering proxies would be to be able to > >place a specified picture (or at least a black rectangle) over a jpg or > >gif file being received from a URL that matches a specified pattern. > >I'm not sufficiently handy with graphics file formats to tell how easy > >this would be. Death to the Usenet Cabal! --- Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps

1 0

Multiply Your Traffic In 5 Minutes!
by mb-347＠lyte.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Tired of top lists? Here's an innovative new way for adult webmasters to MULTIPLY their traffic! http://www.gatkin.com/easyhits.html

1 0

Washing your clothes is hazardous to the Earth!
by fuahuolee91＠prodigy.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

<HTML><PRE><BODY BGCOLOR="#000000"> EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO NASA TECHNOLOGY! That's right, we have exclusive worldwide rights to this NASA-developed technology for use in our laundry system. MAKE $2,000 TO $8,000 per month!. North Carolina State University, College of Textiles, laboratory tests confirm our Ultra 7 laundry system outperforms Liquid Tide, Wisk and All detergents and states The LaundryMaster Disk was also the most effective of the four cleaning systems in improving the whiteness of the poly/cotton fabric. We have the tests results that prove it. + Five of the most respected environmental groups in the country support our product Including the Clean Water Project. (Call us and we will tell you who they are). This is a legitimate business with an entirely unique product called the Ultra 7 Laundry System. Our company employs over 120 people, has over 50,000 reps worldwide and has done over $50 million in sales of this one product in just 9 months. We help sponsor The Clean Water Project and are endorsed by 5 Major Worldwide Environmental groups. . We are for real!! Hello, Are you concerned about the damage we are doing to our environment? I am, and so is the company I am affiliated with. That's why they purchased the rights to this incredible technology never before used in the home laundry industry. With our laundry system, you can throw away your detergent, bleach, stain removers and fabric softeners! That's right, CHEMICAL FREE WASHING with our exclusive laundry system. Here's what I mean: + EASY TO USE-simply drop the disc into your machine with your dirty clothes, add our breakthrough bionic enzymes to replace bleach and stain removers + SAVES YOU $$-our disc is guaranteed to last for 7 YEARS. An average of only 2 cents per wash load! + CHEMICAL-FREE WASHING-works on the principles of liquid magnets developed by NASA 30 years ago for the space industry + INCREASES LIFE OF YOUR CLOTHES-no damaging additives that lead to the breakdown of your clothing, or harm the environment. 60% less lint. + 100% HYPOALLERGENIC AND ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY-no residue is left in your clothes, especially important to people with allergies or sensitive skin. If you want to know more about this incredible new product, and about the fantastic business opportunity available right now (our distributors are breaking all the income records for this industry in just our first eight months in business), then please call 1-888-365-0000 ext.2464 and leave your name, state, and both work and home phone numbers. I will be glad to rush you a free comprehensive information package, as well as your very own laundry system for demonstration.. You'll be able to see for yourself that it truly works great. Help clean up the environment and make big money too, what could be better?! Please, serious inquiries only. I apologize for any inconvenience and hope to hear from you soon. Thank you for your time. Best Regards, L.C. Green PS: Call 1-888-365-0000 ext.2464 now to receive your free comprehensive information package and demonstration laundry system. TO BE REMOVED TYPE REMOVE IN SUBJECT AND REPLY TO sowell(a)bizzy.net

1 0