- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

HR3937 Export Admin. act status
by Stanton McCandlish 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Not voted on yet, in discussion on House floor TODAY (Thu. 07/21/94). We've seen a draft of one possible proposed ammendment, but it is far weaker than the original crypto language. Flowchart: Original HR3627 (Cantwell bill) | | passed by Foreign Affairs Cmte & combined with HR3937 (more general Export Administration Act) | | gutted by Intelligence Cmte | | passed by Rules Cmte in gutted form | | passed into House for final amendments if any (NOW) | | passes or fails vote (today probably) The next to last spot is where we're at now, and the prospects are grim. The only proposed amendment we've heard yet does very little, and even it is expected to be rejected. Looks like we'll all be going through this again next year. -- Stanton McCandlish * mech(a)eff.org * Electronic Frontier Found. OnlineActivist F O R M O R E I N F O, E - M A I L T O: I N F O @ E F F . O R G O P E N P L A T F O R M O N L I N E R I G H T S V I R T U A L C U L T U R E C R Y P T O

1 0

Detweiler
by wrevans＠oceanus.mitre.org 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

To quote from the Welcome to Cypherpunks posting: >"The cypherpunks list has its very own net.loon, a fellow named L. >Detweiler. The history is too long for here, but he thinks that >cypherpunks are evil incarnate. If you see a densely worded rant >featuring characteristic words such as "medusa", "pseudospoofing", >"treachery", "poison", or "black lies", it's probably him, no matter >what the From: line says. The policy is to ignore these postings. >Replies have never, ever, not even once resulted in anything >constructive and usually create huge flamewars on the list. Please, >please, don't feed the animals." Can we stop feeding the animals? I'm tired of getting 20 to 30 postings about Detweiler. I'm new to this interesting and high volume list, but its interest is reduced by the flame war. I hope I haven't offended anyone, but lets talk issues and technology and raise the SNR. Thanks, Ward R. Evans wrevans(a)mitre.org voice: (703) 883-7631 fax: (703) 883-1363

2 1

Re: Come on
by lefty＠apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Lefty: >> >> Anyway, I'm surprised that there isn't a feminist witch-hunt >> >> investigating Samdy Sandfort, for his non-pc H.E.A.T. reports. >> > >> >Yikes, Ray, let's not give anybody ideas! In reality, though, I think the >> >perceptive women on this list know my heart is in the right place. Isn't >> >it clear to everyone what I'm making fun of? >> >> Heh. >> >> It's not clear to Ray. > > Well, I can certainly say that I am impressed that you've progressed >to telepathy, but humor a poor student for once. > > {long, irrelevant diatribe, elided} > > I hope I "got it" Er, no. Not at all. In fact, I think you demonstrated what I was saying quite clearly. But not to leave you hopelessly adrift, what's the fundamental difference between the actions of the subject of your oh-so-sad story, and Sandy's actions? Take your time. Off by a millimeter at the arrow's point; off by a mile at the target. -- Lefty (lefty(a)apple.com) C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.

1 0

Re: Leaving the Country
by frissell＠panix.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 10:04 AM 7/21/94 -0400, Linn Stanton wrote: >I agree of the inheritance tax question, but there is still a problem. The only >stock markets that I know well enough to be comfortable investing in are in the >US. That will not magically change just because I get citizenship somewhere >else, and that still leaves me liable for US tracking and taxes. US stocks are now traded overseas. Non-residents of the US can execute trades on US exchanges. Learning to feel comfortable in different countries and investing environments is very important for diversification even without the independence it gives you. Remember the one major advantage that you have over the nation state -- you can move and it can't. >I respect your efforts in this area, and don't want to give the impression that >I do not take your advice seriously. However, it is too bleeding edge for >someone with a family, IMHO. I have a family too. We shipped the kids out first (so they would learn to read and write). They are very transnational these days. DCF "I think I'll set up a Conformity Consulting Firm. It will teach "diverse" employees how to get along with white males in the workplace."

1 0

Re: No more Cantwell amendment? was Re: Clipper Chip retreat
by solman＠MIT.EDU 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> You wrote: > > | So does anybody actually know of a case in which the government attempted > | to jail somebody for knowingly transmitting cryptographic programs from the > | US? > There was a case where someone was jailed for shipping cable > boxes that do DES out of the US; they didn't know it was illegal & > went to jail. They were in Florida, 1991 or so. I'm not concerned with physical equiptment. Clearly the government has the authority to regulate the export of physical items under munitions laws. But I don't think they should be (or can be under the first amendment) allowed to regulate the flow of information, whether it be via nets or paper. I would suggest that this distinction is why the US is allowing the export of applied cryptography, but not applied cryptography disks. Even if the government believes that distribution of the book is harmful to national security, they clearly can't regulate the expression of ideas on paper. Now most of us have come to think of email as something in between paper and phone calls, but there is no legal precedent (To my knowledge). So I suppose the government could make that argument and defend it. But its really hard for me to imagine the government cracking down on somebody for posting source code via the internet. I'll test that when I'm ready for alpha though. Anybody know a constitutional lawyer interested in taking on a precedent setting case pro bono? :-/ JWS

1 0

FW: "dumb incompetent sex bimbos"
by Blanc Weber 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: Sue D. Nym ".....She's asking you to show respect and courtesy to everyone in the forum and the forum because we think of ourselves as part of humanity." You are so kind to speak up for the cause of womanhood and civil demonstrations of respect & courtesy (and for this forum, as well). "Why is everything in our society in terms of "Us vs. Them"?" One reason is because some people are looking more for heat than light. "This can't even be called a society. It is a battlefield." However, somewhere in the heat of ideological battles some productive conclusions are reached; such as that some people will not be influenced by other's opinions and that it is useless to attempt to make conclusions for everyone without their expressed consent. "Here's hoping the positive vibrations of the Jupiter-trumpet will beam into OUR lives and wreak a positive transformation." I think Jupiter is suffering from problems of its own, at this time, being bombarded by a string of meteors. Let us hope we (on planet Earth) don't receive the same. Blanc

1 0

Clipper Chip Retreat
by Jonathan Rochkind 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

> I'll leave it to someone else to post the entire article, but the gist > is that Gore sent a letter to Maria Cantwell saying that the > administration is willing to consider alternatives to Clipper that are > based upon nonclassified algrithms, and where the escrow agents are > not government agencies. They still insist on an escrow system, > however. This was an incredibly wise move on their part. We who still find the kindler gentler Clipper unacceptable are going to have a much harder time convincing the public at large of our case. Before Clipper was such a completley idiotic idea that almost anyone who wasn't on the NSA-s payrole would automatically oppose it. It's still a bad idea, but a public-domain algorithm clipper with non-governmental escrow agents isn't quite as obvously insane and inane as the previous clipper. On the other hand, we already have "clipper is bad", implanted in a lot of people's minds. I don't think the administration is going to be able to shake that loose quite so easily. And I do think we can convince many people that new improved clipper is bad because of the escrow agency alone. But it's not so easy. If the administation had come out with a version of this kinder gentler clipper from the start, it might actually have been succesful.

3 3

Re: Clipper Chip Retreat
by sidney＠taurus.apple.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Carl Ellison writes: >I don't care about Skipjack. If they want to publish, I'd read the paper, >but I'm plenty content with triple-DES for routine stuff and DTDTD But if the government is going to push key escrow and they are going to use an unclassified system, then they have to 1) Use a relatively weak cryptographic system in order to keep people from using the unclassified system for fully secure communication with their own non-escrowed keys, and 2) Outlaw using any other (more secure) encryption. This fits right in with Gore's not backing down on export controls. Combine that with his talk of using unclassified, exportable encryption, and he has to be talking about replacing Skipjack with a weak or key-size restricted system (which would not be subject to export controls). And as Mike McNally pointed out, that just increases the likelihood that the government would attempt to make use of other encryption illegal, because with the algorithms known and in software there would be no other way of controlling (or attempting to control) what people do. -- sidney <sidney(a)apple.com>

1 0

"Key Escrow" --- the very idea
by Mike_Spreitzer.PARC＠xerox.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

(1) I'm not an anarchist. Does that make me out of place here? I'm willing to live with some amount of government, as long as us owners stand a chance of controlling or overthrowing it. My biggest problem with Capstone is that it changes the balance of power too much. (2) I think crimes can be committed in cyberspace. Substantially, if not entirely, in cyberspace. Maybe not so many now. But I think it's intellectually dishonest of us who understand the growing importance of cyberspace to claim there won't be any social contracts there that could be violated. I accept the terms of the 4th ammendment: search and siezure allowed when due process followed. "Key escrow" is an attempt to implement the cyberspatial analog of search. (3) The Feds must know they can't prevent modestly well funded, educated, and motivated folks from using unbreakable cryptography amongst themselves. The argument for doing key escrow anyway is that by installing a breakable infrastructure, they'll make enough investigations cheaper and more effective to be worth it. Note that's a comparison of their money and success rate against our privacy; no wonder they got it so wrong. (4) If you accept points (1) and (2) above, you're left wanting a way to implement searches in cyberspace when due process is followed. I hope anarchists won't be the only people opposing changing the balance of power greatly in the government's favor (by poorly designed key escrow). What are the rest of us left to answer with? Perhaps a much better key escrow design. One that integrates the search with the due process in a cryptographically strong way; one that can't be subverted by a few people in a few organizations. For example, who says an escrowed key must have only two parts? Why not a whole lot of parts, distributed to a whole lot of people/organizations? If there are only 1000 legal wiretaps in a year, and they're already fairly expensive, we can add a fair amount to the cost before it gets significant. And again, remember where we're weighing money against freedom. It may be that we just have to spend more to stay a reasonably free society. Also, it's worth debating just how strong the protections have to be. Will we need them to be stronger than those against physical searches? How few people does it take to subvert the current protections against illegal searches? Do we feel that needs to be changed? How much are we willing to spend on it?

1 0

Re: No more Cantwell amendment? was Re: Clipper Chip retreat
by merriman＠metronet.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

>Now most of us have come to think of email as something in between paper >and phone calls, but there is no legal precedent (To my knowledge). So I >suppose the government could make that argument and defend it. But its >really hard for me to imagine the government cracking down on somebody for >posting source code via the internet. I'll test that when I'm ready for >alpha though. Anybody know a constitutional lawyer interested in taking >on a precedent setting case pro bono? :-/ Might check with EFF/ACLU/CPSR - *one* of them should be interested :-| Dave Merriman Wherever you go in Life - there you are!

1 0